DIG Santosh Rastogi may be the 'mole' leaking documents to Prashant Bhushan, CBI director tells SC

NEW DELHI: CBI director RanjitSinha on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that his DIG, SantoshRastogi, who is in charge of the 2G scam probe, “appears” to be the “mole” who was leaking documents and file notings to AamAadmi Party leader and advocate PrashantBhushan.
Sinha identified Rastogi as the possible source within the CBI who shared information with Bhushan on the basis of which “false and baseless” allegations were leveled against him.
The CBI chief was conducting an internal inquiry for the past two months to find the purported mole within the CBI and in fact, he had removed Santosh Rastogi from the 2G scam probe, but on Supreme Court’s intervention, Rastogi was reinstated to the team. The CBI director’s blunt claim in the apex court against one of his own DIGs brings to the fore for the first time the present infighting within the agency. The prevailing tension in CBI could have a major impact on the agency’s working in the coming future.
On Wednesday, the four-and-half hour proceedings witnessed high-voltage drama and heated exchange of words with counsel appearing for Sinha and Bhushan losing their temper often.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the director, submitted that the allegations leveled (against Sinha) are baseless and false and placed confidential files of 2G probe to substantiate his arguments that Ranjit Sinha had not tried to save any accused in the case.
He said the file notings and documents, on the basis of which NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed the petition seeking probe against the director, was supplied by Rastogi.
“It appears from the affidavit filed by CPIL that Santosh Rastogi is supplying all the information. We informed the apex court that he could be the mole in CBI,” Singh said.
CBI director Ranjit Sinha has defended a series of allegations leveled by CPIL against him like he influenced the 2G scam probe, that he tried to favour Reliance Telecom and that he shunted out the investigating officer in the case, Santosh Rastogi. “On all these allegations, we argued on Wednesday that all these allegations are baseless. When it comes to transferring Rastogi, he was not the investigating officer, rather he is supervising officer. So this allegation that IO was transferred doesn’t stand,” Singh told TOI.
On Prashant Bhushan’s allegations against Sinha for diluting the 2G scam probe, on the basis of visitors’ register of Sinha’s residence, Vikas Singh told the court, “DIG onwards, subordinate officers had themselves mentioned on file that there was weak evidence, so the matter was referred to attorney general”.
Vikas Singh, however, did not give an explanation about Sinha’s frequent meetings with various accused when senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Bhushan and the NGO, said that the director himself had admitted to the meetings in his interviews with the media. The NGO had expressed its inability to reveal the whistle blower to the court saying that “The trust (of whistleblower) is sacrosanct and if it is broken, then nobody would come forward to give information".
The director, on the other hand, pleaded with the court that the petition should not be entertained till the name of the whistleblower is disclosed to the court.
In the beginning of the hearing, Dave said that there should be an independent inquiry on the allegation against the director and questioned why Ranjit Sinha is shying away from probe.
He said that Bhushan and the NGO were ready to be prosecuted if the information given by them regarding CBI director Ranjit Sinha's alleged misconduct proved to be wrong.
“We are not hiding away. You are hiding away. We are putting our future in the hands of judges,” he said adding “We are not saying that what we are saying is gospel truth. We are just pleading that the allegations be probed independently.”
Referring to the allegation, he said it amounts to obstruction of justice and betraying the trust reposed by this court in the director.
“He is functioning as if director is the CBI and the CBI is the director. Time has come to send a strong message that court cannot be taken for granted,” Dave said.
He said that powerful people are behind it and there cannot be any justification for such meetings.
“Why was he hobnobbing with the accused? We are looking like a banana republic because of people like him. Our constitutional values are being cheated away slowly and steadily,” he said.
The arguments remained inconclusive and would resume on Thursday when the Special Public Prosecutor Anand Grover would make his stand clear on the allegation.
Earlier, the apex court had asked Grover to assist the court in the case filed against Sinha and sought his stand on the issue.
Grover in his 15-page note said Sinha's frequent meetings with several accused and their representatives in 2G case is "definitely improper" and whether his conduct amounts to criminal contempt needs to be examined.
He had also urged the court to recall its order asking for the name of the whistleblower who had leaked documents including CBI director’s visitors’ register to Bhushan, saying it should not insist on the issue.
Grover had said people have a right to know details of the director’s conduct as it does not pertain to his personal affairs and no law protects the confidentiality of information in the guest list register which should be examined by the apex court.