------------------------------------------- CBI chiefs demand to reveal name of source makes a strong case for anonymity of whistleblowers ------------------------------------------ The News Minute | September 8, 2014 | 2.36 pm IST CBI director Ranjit Sinha on Monday asked the Supreme Court to direct lawyer Prashant Bhushan to make declare to the court the source of certain documents he furnished to the court. The documents in question are the original visitors’ entry register of Sinha’s official residence on 2 Janpath in New Delhi. Bhushan submitted the register on Monday, saying that two unidentified persons had delivered them to his house two days ago. Bhushan is representing the Centre for Public Litigation, an NGO which is also a party to the 2G case. The visitors’ entry registers show that several of the main accused in the 2G and coal blocks allocation cases visited Sinha several times and that these visitors turned up at Sinha’s residence early in the morning, during the day or even late at night. As an investigation agency the CBI of all people or institutions must recognise the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of sources who provide information. In fact the organisation works a lot on the basis of information passed on by sources, anonymous or otherwise. It is then ironic that the man who heads the CBI, the country’s top sleuth makes a demand that the source of Bhushan’s information should be disclosed. Once that information is in court, what prevents the top sleuth or agency from accessing the information? In May, the President gave his assent for the Whistle Blowers Bill, a long-standing demand of RTI activists. The law however, did not match the expectations of those it sought to protect. Asked about Sinha’s demand, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information Rakesh Reddy D, said that the CBI Director asking for the source of information that could possibly implicate him “was laughable”. He said anonymity was the “crux of the matter”, adding, “A lot of attacks happen on whistle blowers when officials divulge information.” Saying that it was easy for anyone with access to obtain information, he added: “You can’t trust officials to be honest.” The Whistle Blowers’ Act does not allow for anonymous complaints, unlike similar laws in the US, UK, and other places. This is a major handicap according to activists. Also, under the law, the identity of a whistle blower would be known to a competent authority. “Tomorrow the CBI could be designated competent authority. Why should he know who the source is? He should only be concerned about whether the information is right or wrong. The source of the information has nothing to do with whether the information is right or wrong,” adds Rakesh Reddy. Hearing the case on Monday, the Supreme Court told Sinha to file a counter-affidavit in a week’s time in response to these allegations which it said were “serious”. Even earlier, Sinha had approached the court to issue an injunction against the media, preventing them from reporting on the contents of the registers. In the same plea, he had asked the court to direct Bhushan to disclose the source of the documents. In response, the Supreme Court said: “Suppose he does not disclose the source of information, will we not be asking him for it? We will ask him how did he secure it and he would certainly say he secured these documents in a manner sanctioned by the law. Source: thenewsminute/news_sections/1353
Posted on: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:36:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015