Authenticity and genuineness of transcript when admitted does not call for a report: SC

The object and purpose of directing the enquiry was, thus, to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the conversation contained in the pen drive. This Court granting time to the petitioner by order dated 11.01.2021, petitioner having filed affidavit and admitted the conversation dated 20.07.2020 and has also filed the corrected transcript of the English translation of the audio tape as Annexure P16, which is admitted to him, we see no reason to allow to continue the enquiry by Justice R.V. Raveendran was directed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Authenticity and genuineness of the transcript having been admitted to the extent as contained in Annexure P-16, we are of the view that the direction by the High Court calling for a report from Justice R.V. Raveendran need not be allowed to continue. We order accordingly. (Para 12)

JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Special Leave Petition (C) No.6100 of 2021 (Diary No.24744 of 2020)

Decided On April 12, 2021.

Counsel For Appellant- Shri Prashant Bhushan

Counsel for respondent- Shri Thushar Mehta

A Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R Subhash Reddy decided the present case.

BC SC ST Minority Student federation ( hereinafter Respondent No.5), a registered society under the provision of Societies Registration Act, 1860 filed the writ petition No.168 of 2020 as a PIL seeking relief relating to the compliance of the COVID -19 protocol in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Respondent No.3 the High court of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Registrar General filed a counter affidavit dated 30.07.2020, questioning the locus of the Writ petition.

Further an I.A. No.7 of 2020 was filed by S. Ramakrishna along with his affidavit stating the vexatious intentions and the malafide attempt to achieve vested interests behind Writ Petition No.168 of 2020. The affidavit furthered that the incumbent government had unleashed a vicious propaganda against the judiciary to cover its short comings , with the support of retired judges like the appellant . The affidavit also alleged that the appellant contacted him (S. Ramakrishna ) through his secretary , wanting to speak with him. Retd. Justice V. Eswaraiah during the course of their conversion asked him whether he was aware of the letter submitted by the All India Backward Classes Federation dated 29.06.2020. The transcript of the said conversation along with the audio recording was filed with the affidavit for perusal of the court. The applicant prayed that Writ Petition PIL No.168 of 2000 be reopened and suitable orders be passed as may deem fit and proper. I.A. No.9 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.3 along with an affidavit of the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

The writ petitioner filed a counter affidavit to I.A. Nos. 7 and 8. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 13.08.2020 passed an order directing enquiry to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the conversation contained in the pen drive. The High Court requested Justice R.V. Raveendran, a Retired Judge of this Court to hold out an enquiry for the same.Aggrieved by the above direction of the High Court the petitioner, Retired Acting Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, has filed this writ petition.

The appellant was represented by Shri Prashant Bushan , who stated that the transcription of the talk between the appellant and S. Radhakrishna dated 20.07.2020 has been filed as Annexure P16 to the paper book. He did not dispute the conversation and prayed that the petitioner be permitted to file an affidavit with regard to conversation dated 20.04.2020.

In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11.01.2021, affidavit dated 14.01.2021 has been filed by the petitioner Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.). In the affidavit, it has been admitted that a suspended District Munsif Magistrate of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. S. Ramakrishna called him over Whatsapp on 20.07.2020. He, however, stated that he cannot say that if the conversation contained in the pen drive is the exact conversation. The learned council for the petitioner submitted that the High Court could not have entertained the I.A. No.7 of 2020 and I.A. No.8 of 2020 , at the instance of the suspended Munsif S.Ramakrishnan, when the writ petition was already closed on preliminary objection on 31.07.2020. The subject matter of the writ petition was an entirely different matter, varying completely form the contents of the telephone conversation . The petitioner was not given notice by the High Court and the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel also urged that the HC could not have ordered an enquiry in the transcript without the petitioner being given an opportunity. The learned counsel submitted that petitioner since admits the transcripts, which has been filed as Annexure P-16 pages 134-154 of the paper book, there is no need to hold any enquiry by Justice R.V.

The Court considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records, and observed:

The object and purpose of directing the enquiry was, thus, to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the conversation contained in the pen drive. This Court granting time to the petitioner by order dated 11.01.2021, petitioner having filed affidavit and admitted the conversation dated 20.07.2020 and has also filed the corrected transcript of the English translation of the audio tape as Annexure P16, which is admitted to him, we see no reason to allow to continue the enquiry by Justice R.V. Raveendran was directed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Authenticity and genuineness of the transcript having been admitted to the extent as contained in Annexure P-16, we are of the view that the direction by the High Court calling for a report from Justice R.V. Raveendran need not be allowed to continue. We order accordingly. (Para 12)

It was also held that the High Court ought not to initiate an inquiry in matters apart from the maintainability of the PIL. The instance of the writ petitioner and the conversation dated 20.07.2020 filed before the High Court as well as the enquiry report sought was only with the above purpose.

The SLP was disposed off by observing the following:

We have not issued notice in the special leave petition neither have entered into the merits of the writ petition, nor expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the Writ Petition PIL No.168 of 2020, it is for the High Court to proceed with the writ petition and decide the same, including the maintainability of the PIL, after hearing arguments on which point the orders were reserved. (Para 16)

View/Download Judgment: JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Shreya Shetty G R