 "SC agrees to hear charges against Ranjit Sinha without learning whistleblower's name")
In a setback to CBI Director Ranjit Sinha, the Supreme Court today agreed to consider a plea for hearing allegations levelled against him without knowing the name of the whistleblower in a case relating to controversial entries in the visitors' diary at his residence.
A bench headed by Justice H L Dattu sought the assistance of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), appointed by it for trial in 2G cases, saying that any order passed by it may have ramifications on multi-crore scam cases.
The bench agreed to hear the plea of NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which pleaded for recall of its earlier order.
It turned down the plea of the CBI Director's counsel Vikas Singh that the apex court should not hear the case any further in view of the NGO refusing to disclose the name of "mole" who leaked the documents, including CBI file notings and the register.
Submitting that there has been no interference on his part in any of the cases probed by CBI, Sinha pleaded that continuance of this case even for a single day would cause more public harm and would affect 2G cases.
The bench, however, said, "We don't believe so."
A bench headed by Justice H L Dattu sought the assistance of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), appointed by it for trial in 2G cases, saying that any order passed by it may have ramifications on multi-crore scam cases.
The bench agreed to hear the plea of NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which pleaded for recall of its earlier order.
Also Read
The court had asked the NGO to reveal the name of the whistleblower in a sealed envelope.
It turned down the plea of the CBI Director's counsel Vikas Singh that the apex court should not hear the case any further in view of the NGO refusing to disclose the name of "mole" who leaked the documents, including CBI file notings and the register.
Submitting that there has been no interference on his part in any of the cases probed by CBI, Sinha pleaded that continuance of this case even for a single day would cause more public harm and would affect 2G cases.
The bench, however, said, "We don't believe so."