Visitors’ diary not CBI chief Ranjit Sinha’s personal property: Public prosecutor

New Delhi, Prabhati Nayak Mishra: The visitors’ diary at 2 Janpath – the official residence of CBI director Ranjit Sinha – is not his personal property but appears to be a record of his professional meetings conducted in his official capacity, special public prosecutor Anand Grover says in his 15-page affidavit, accessed by dna.

Visitors’ diary not CBI chief Ranjit Sinha’s personal property: Public prosecutor

Grover was responding to a plea by the CBI director that the identity of the person who leaked the diary details should be disclosed. dna, which accessed the diary, had reported that many representatives of the accused in the 2G scam, including two top executives of the Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group, had visited 2 Janpath. In fact, the two visited the CBI chief 50 times.

“The CBI director had his camp office at his residence. The information contained in the register does not pertain to his personal affairs and appears to be a record of his professional meetings conducted in his official capacity,’’ Grover’s affidavit reads.

What’s the crux of Grover’s argument?
His argument is that no law protects the confidentiality of information in the register and Sinha cannot claim any violation of constitutional rights.“The Official Secrets Act or other statutory law does not protect the confidentiality of the information in the register,’’ Grover said.

Is disclosure of names mandatory?
The disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity is not required because the CBI director himself has admitted meeting with representatives of the 2G scam accused several times to the media. “The purpose has already been served as the CBI director admitted meeting the accused….No other purpose will be served by providing the source of information,” Grover said.

Is the whistleblower’s action justified?
Grover says the expose was for public interest. Since the Supreme Court has been monitoring the 2G case, he brought it to the court’s notice. Grover argued for the non-disclosure of whistleblower’s identity saying it will endanger his life. “Right to security of his life and physical safety emerging from his right to life under Article 21 can be protected only by non-disclosure of his name,” Grover said.

What else does Grover’s report say?
“…if the appellant (Prashant Bhushan) reveals the identity of the source of information, it may have a chilling effect on this case by obstructing the potential flow of information… It may also have implications on other such cases, which depend significantly on information provided by whistleblowers,” Grover said.