The Supreme Court on Thursday sought response from the Centre, CBI, income tax department and two magazines on industrialist Ratan Tata?s plea seeking a direction to the government to probe leak of audio tapes of his phone conversations with corporate lobbyist Niira Radia.
Transcripts of some of these taped conversations have also been reproduced in various magazines, newspapers and websites, stirring a controversy over the alleged nexus between lobbyists, politicians, bureaucrats and journalists.
A Bench comprising justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly issued notice to the ministries of home affairs (which authorised the phone tapping) and finance, the Directorate General of Income Tax (who tapped Radia?s phone on charges of tax violations) and the Central Bureau of Investigation. Besides, it also sought reply from the two news magazines ? Outlook and Open ? which have published parts of transcripts of the taped conversations.
While the magazines were not made parties by the Tata group chairman in his petition, the court directed him to implead them (magazines) as respondents in the case. Attorney general GE Vahanvati accepted notices on behalf of the government departments. The next hearing is slated for December 13.
The court clarified that it was necessary to hear the magazines before passing any orders on Tata?s plea. ?Since we are examining the issue, we should hear the other side,? it observed.
Alleging that the publication of these conversations violated his client?s right to privacy, senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Tata, said that ?we have to balance these interests. In our country, openness is a must. But it cannot give rise to tabloid journalism,? Salve argued.
He, however, clarified that he did not want a ?gag order? but only a direction to the government to protect the privacy and confidentiality of any such phone call recordings.
The counsel made it clear that the industrialist is not challenging the right of the statutory authorities including CBI to record private conversations and use transcripts of any conversations for investigative purposes.
However, he added that ?they have a corresponding duty to ensure that what is recorded by them stays in the privacy of their custody and is not made available in any way for public dissemination. The power to record private telephone conversation is an extraordinary power and, therefore, must be carried out with utmost responsibility.?
Invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, which is rarely encouraged by the apex court, Tata sought protection of his right to privacy conferred under Article 21, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Seeking a direction to the government to take necessary steps to ?immediately retrieve and recover? all the possible recordings that have been removed from its custody, the petition said that ?the respondents are trustees of the transcripts. If any of their functionaries were given custody of the transcripts, they received in trust, then the unauthorised leaking of these transcripts would constitute a breach of trust and the recipients of these transcripts are recipients of stolen property.?
