Trouble brews for CBI director over meeting 2G accused

September 4, 2014

New Delhi, Sep 4: CBI Director Ranjit Sinha appears to be in trouble as he may have a tough time in the Supreme Court on Thursday while explaining the “frequent visits to his residence” by top corporate honchos and businessmen accused in 2G and coal scam cases.

Sinha flatly denied any wrongdoing and termed fake the visitors’ register submitted in the Supreme Court by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who approached the apex court seeking removal of Sinha from monitoring the 2G case. The veracity of the visitors’ diary could not be independently verified.

The diary purportedly contains the names of Anil Ambani’s aides Tony Jesudasan and A N Sethuraman, and meat exporter Moin Qureshi. Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (RADAG) is an accused in the 2G scam case, while Qureshi is under the scanner of the Income Tax Department.

“The register (submitted by Bhushan) is fake, I have two registers that are maintained by the police,” Sinha was quoted as saying by a TV channel. Sinha also said he had met Reliance officials. “But have I shown favour to anyone?” he asked.

The CBI had, on Tuesday, issued a statement denying any illegal conduct by its director. The Supreme Court will examine the “diary” and its contents on Thursday.

The Aam Aadmi Party, in which Bhushan is a senior functionary, demanded the immediate suspension of Sinha for compromising the agency’s impartiality through his unbecoming behaviour of “holding secret meetings”.

“The diary contains several hundred pages in which there are several thousands of hand written entries. Now, for the director to deny the existence of such a diary shows (his) desperation to try and get time. This can be authenticated through a probe. It will not take more than five minutes. Just ask the guards who made the entries,” Bhushan said.

The issue snowballed into a controversy with a report on a newspaper’s website and Bhushan informing the Supreme Court that he has come across “disturbing and explosive” materials relating to Sinha’s frequent meetings with RADAG officials and other accused at his residence.

Sinha purportedly met two officials of RADAG 50 times in 15 months (between May 2013 and August 2014) at his official residence 2, Janpath, here. Sinha is already under fire from the Supreme Court in connection with the ongoing trial in the 2G scam case.

Two names are mentioned incompletely in the diary like Tony, Toni, Toni+Sir, Raman, Setu, Setu Raman and Toni+Setu. The registration numbers of the cars in which they arrived were also recorded.

Qureshi also visited Sinha on several occasions along with former director of CBI, A P Singh, now a member of the Union Public Service Commission. He visited Sinha at least 90 times in 15 months, the report claimed, adding that he seems to have been Sinha’s family friend.

Qureshi and wife were mentioned as Kureshi, Muin Kureshi, Kureshiji, Kureshi1, Kureshiwife, Kureshi (madam), written both in English and Hindi in the register.

Qureshi even sent his tailor and car to Sinha’s residence at times, the report claimed.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments