The Supreme Court today directed advocate Prashant Bhushan, who has levelled allegations against CBI Director Ranjit Sinha of protecting accused in the 2G case, to reveal the name of the whistleblower from whom he got CBI documents and guest list of the top cop's residence.
The apex court said that it would go into the merit of allegations against Sinha after knowing name of the whistleblower who leaked documents including the purported entry register of Director's residence.
A bench of justices H L Dattu and S A Bobde said that the affidavit filed by Bhushan is not in consonance with the Supreme Court rules and asked him to reveal the source from whom he got all the documents.
"Put name of the whistleblower in a sealed envelope. Once we realise that there is no hanky-panky then we would consider what type of probe is to be done," the bench told Bhushan.
Bhushan strongly opposed the suggestion to reveal the name of whistleblower and submitted that all the documents are genuine which can be verified by the apex court itself or it can appoint a committee or SIT to examine their authenticity.
"I can put my life at stake on the issue that register is genuine. It is impossible to fabricate it. I can guarantee that it is genuine register which was maintained at gate," he said, adding, "Its clear that prosecution case in 2G scam is being destroyed by the Director."
The bench, however, requested Bhushan to name the whistleblower in a sealed envelope.
The director questioned the very existence of the diary before the apex court and said that 90 per cent of the entries were fudged though some entries may be genuine.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the top cop, said that somebody else is controlling the proceedings in the case and raised questions on how a media group published a story in advance that Bhushan will be depositing the original guest list before the apex court.
"Director acted in complete bona fide. 90 percent entry is fudged and only some entries may be genuine," he said, contending ""Diary is not an evidence per se"
He alleged that a corporate house is working behind all these controversies and it is intended to benefit some of the accused in the 2G scam.
