Supreme Court Issues Notice in Tata's Right to Privacy Plea

Source : Indlaw

The Supreme Court also issued notices to Union Home Ministry, CBI, Income Tax Department and news magazines ’Open’ and ’Outlook’ on a petition filed by industrialist Ratan Tata seeking an inquiry into "selective leakage" of Nira Radia conversation tapes. 

A bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly directed the respondents, including Union Finance Ministry to respond to the allegations within 10 days by way of counter-affidavit. 

Senior Counsel Harish Salve (Pictured) appearing for Mr Tata submitted before the Court that leakage of conversation tapes to the media amounted to violation of his Right to Privacy. 

Mr Salve also pleaded that he has no problem if the case was handed over to the investigating agency but leakage of the conversation to the media amounts to an attack on the Right to Privacy of a citizen. 

The apex court asked Mr Salve why the two magazines, which had published the excerpts of the conversation, have not been made a party. 

Mr Salve readily agreed to implead them. 

The Government today submitted original tapes containing the conversation between corporate lobbyist Nira Radia and politicians, industrialists, journalists and bureaucrats, to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover. 

The government has already ordered an inquiry into the leakage of tapes.

Precedentiary Value of Judgments : The Law

Justice Anil Kumar
Delhi High Court

Justice Anil Kumar of the Delhi High Court, while dealing with a writ for reinstatement of services of an employee, in Narender Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India And Others has discussed the precedent value of judgment and how the same are to be interpreted. The Court observed, as under;

The precedents relied on by the petitioner are apparently distinguishable. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It must be remembered that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd (2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide para 59), the Supreme had observed:- 

" It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision."

The Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. v. N.R.Vairamani and Anr. (AIR 2004 SC 778) had also held that a decision cannot be relied on without considering the factual situation. In the same judgment the Supreme Court also observed:- " Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes."

In P.S.Rao Vs State, JT 2002 (3) SC 1, the Supreme Court had held as under:

"There is always a peril in treating the words of judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases."

In Rafiq Vs State, 1980 SCC (Crl) 946 it was observed as under: 

"The ratio of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without having regard to the fact situation and circumstances obtaining in two cases."

Right to Privacy : Tata moves Supreme Court

Source : The Hindi

Unauthorised publication of his private conversations with business woman Niira Radia recorded by the Directorate-General of Income Tax has infringed his right to privacy, industrialist Ratan Tata asserted in his writ petition filed in the Supreme Court on Monday.

Mr. Tata said that since April-May 2010, there had been reports in the media that the DGIT had authorised the interception and recording of telephone conversations Ms. Radia had with various people. The reports also suggested that these recordings made by the IT department for the purpose of its investigations were thereafter handed over to the CBI.

Mr. Tata made it clear that he was not challenging the right of the statutory authorities to make a recording of private telephone conversations and the power of the CBI to use the transcripts for the purpose of investigations. He was aggrieved by the failure of the authorities to take adequate steps to protect the privacy of those whose conversations were recorded and to act in accordance with the Rules under the Indian Telegraph Act in dealing with these transcripts. Even if the transcripts were illegally obtained by someone, no steps were taken to retrieve them and prevent their dissemination in public.

He said the unauthorised publication of a private conversation between two citizens was protected by the “right to privacy” under Article 21 of the Constitution as the publication of such conversations could seriously damage their reputation. Quoting a series of Supreme Court judgments, he said telephone tapping, unless it was permitted under the procedure established by law, would infract Article 21 of the Constitution and any restriction imposed on making such tapes public would come under the purview of reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

Mr. Tata said that Article 21 would extend to the protection of his reputation and that of those similarly situated. There would be a constitutional duty on the part of the Union of India and its agencies to exercise their power under the law to recover the data obtained without authorisation and prevent its further dissemination.

He sought a direction to the authorities to take all steps as might be necessary to retrieve as far as possible all the recordings; a direction to the CBI to conduct a thorough enquiry into the matter; and a direction to ensure that there was no further publication of these recordings — either as audio files through the Internet or as transcripts in any media, print or electronic.

Tata is being represented by Karanjawala & Co. in the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to Quit Bar Council Post?

Gopal Subramanium

Source : Indian Express


About six months after he was unanimously elected chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), the body which regulates legal profession in the country, Solicitor General (SG) Gopal Subramanium may have to put in his papers. When contacted, Subramanium refused to say anything on the issue.

Sources said Union Law Minister M Veerappa Moily recently asked him to resign from his BCI post so that he could concentrate full-time on his job as the Government of India’s second senior-most law officer.

Subramanium has been in the eye of a storm after an affidavit settled by him in the 2G scam case resulted in the name of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh being dragged into the issue. Upset with the wording of the affidavit, the Law Minister ordered the immediate reversion of Department of Telecom’s legal adviser Santokh Singh to the Law Ministry. On Monday, Singh was placed under suspension for making false claims while giving an opinion in the 2G matter.

“The government wants the Solicitor General to resign the BCI post. He is representing the government in a number of important cases. Moreover, with the Law Ministry deciding to reform the legal education system as well as the legal profession, questions could arise on the issue of conflict in the two posts that the Solicitor General is holding. The views of the government and the BCI may not be the same on a number of issues such as the proposed Legal Practitioners (Regulations and Maintenance of Standards in Professions, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Act, 2010,” said a senior Law Ministry functionary privy to the issue.

Asked if there was a deadline by which Subramanium would have to resign, the officer said the government expected him to resign at the earliest. The minister, it is learnt, told Subramanium last week that it would be better if he stepped down from the post of chairman BCI to concentrate on his legal work.

Sources in the Law Ministry said that the judicial and legal education reforms initiated by the ministry could see some opposition from the BCI. The BCI’s move to hold an entry examination for aspiring lawyers has also run into rough weather, with the Law Ministry also not too keen on the exam being held. It has also received a large number of representations against the BCI move to hold the exam.