The list forms the kernel of Bhushan’s allegation that the CBI director compromised investigations into major scams by meeting the accused at his residence.
‘We can correct our mistake if it is a mistake so that it doesn’t affect the pending and future (petitions)’, the court said, responding to the argument that an order to reveal one’s source could discourage petitioners.
Bhushan’s Centre for Public Interest Litigations had earlier filed a petition asking the court to recall its order on revealing the source of his information on visitors to the CBI chief’s home. The top court turned down the plea of 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.
‘No, no. We are sorry Mr Vikas,’ the bench said when the CBI counsel pleaded that no order should be passed and he should be heard before passing any direction.
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.’
Singh also contended that the NGO must reveal the name of the ‘mole’ while submitting that the kind of affidavit filed by the NGO (on allegations against Sinha) should not be permitted as otherwise anyone would be allowed to get away even after making baseless allegations in the apex court.
The court directed that all documents, including CBI files and the visitors’ list register pertaining to the allegations against the top cop, be handed over to SPP Anand Grover, who will go through all the information and assist the court on the next date of hearing on 10 October.
At the beginning of the proceedings, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the NGO, and Prashant Bhushan tendered an unconditional apology before the apex court for its ‘inability’ to reveal the name of the whistleblower and pleaded for recall of its earlier order on disclosing the name.
Dave further submitted that it is not an attempt at character assassination of the CBI director but the
apex court must look into the allegations levelled against him which need to be probed.
On 22 February, 2014, Millennium Post broke the news of Moin Qureshi’s (a Kanpur-based meat exporter) dubious activities and his connections with powerful people in the political, bureaucratic and business fraternities, including former CBI chief A P Singh. The controversy around Sinha came to the fore after it was found that Qureshi had ‘allegedly’ met him 90 times in last 15 months. The visitors’ diary at his 2 Janpath residence revealed that he met two top Reliance ADAG officials nearly 50 times in the last one year. According to the charges levelled, the visits coincided with Sinha’s alleged attempt to file an affidavit which sought to ‘defuse’ the charges against the company in the 2G scam.
‘We can correct our mistake if it is a mistake so that it doesn’t affect the pending and future (petitions)’, the court said, responding to the argument that an order to reveal one’s source could discourage petitioners.
Bhushan’s Centre for Public Interest Litigations had earlier filed a petition asking the court to recall its order on revealing the source of his information on visitors to the CBI chief’s home. The top court turned down the plea of 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.
‘No, no. We are sorry Mr Vikas,’ the bench said when the CBI counsel pleaded that no order should be passed and he should be heard before passing any direction.
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.’
Singh also contended that the NGO must reveal the name of the ‘mole’ while submitting that the kind of affidavit filed by the NGO (on allegations against Sinha) should not be permitted as otherwise anyone would be allowed to get away even after making baseless allegations in the apex court.
The court directed that all documents, including CBI files and the visitors’ list register pertaining to the allegations against the top cop, be handed over to SPP Anand Grover, who will go through all the information and assist the court on the next date of hearing on 10 October.
At the beginning of the proceedings, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the NGO, and Prashant Bhushan tendered an unconditional apology before the apex court for its ‘inability’ to reveal the name of the whistleblower and pleaded for recall of its earlier order on disclosing the name.
Dave further submitted that it is not an attempt at character assassination of the CBI director but the
apex court must look into the allegations levelled against him which need to be probed.
On 22 February, 2014, Millennium Post broke the news of Moin Qureshi’s (a Kanpur-based meat exporter) dubious activities and his connections with powerful people in the political, bureaucratic and business fraternities, including former CBI chief A P Singh. The controversy around Sinha came to the fore after it was found that Qureshi had ‘allegedly’ met him 90 times in last 15 months. The visitors’ diary at his 2 Janpath residence revealed that he met two top Reliance ADAG officials nearly 50 times in the last one year. According to the charges levelled, the visits coincided with Sinha’s alleged attempt to file an affidavit which sought to ‘defuse’ the charges against the company in the 2G scam.