Supreme Court Defers Judgment On Justice Eswaraiah's Plea To Set Aside AP High Court Order For Enquiry Into Alleged Phone Call 'Conspiracy' Against SC Judge
The Supreme Court on Friday deferred pronouncement of the judgement in the plea filed by former Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge, Justice V. Eswaraiah, against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordering a judicial inquiry into an alleged phone conversation between him and a District Judge plotting 'conspiracy' against the Chief Justice of the High Court and a sitting Supreme Court...
The Supreme Court on Friday deferred pronouncement of the judgement in the plea filed by former Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge, Justice V. Eswaraiah, against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordering a judicial inquiry into an alleged phone conversation between him and a District Judge plotting 'conspiracy' against the Chief Justice of the High Court and a sitting Supreme Court Judge.
A Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan was apprised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who is appearing for an intervenor apposing Eswaraiah's plea, that an Application was filed relating to the seizure of the phone of the District Judge Mr. S. Ramakrishna(with whom Eswaraiah was allegedly speaking). Agreeing to the request of the Senior Counsel to take into account this application while pronouncing the judgment, the Court adjourned the matter to April 5.
Sibal informed the Court, "We have filed an Application to place certain facts on record. Judge Ramakrishna was arrested in an unconnected case and his phone was seized. Police said phone was lost. This was done purposely to not bring the conversation on record. It is to subvert the inquiry".
Accordingly, he requested the Bench to keep this in mind while pronouncing the judgement.
The matter will now be heard on April 5th.
It was on February 22 that a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy reserved orders on the petition filed by Eswaraiah against the AP High Court order, which entrusted the enquiry with former SC judge Justice R V Raveendran.During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Justice Easwariah submitted that the High Court has passed the impugned order in a "strange" manner, while hearing an unconnected petition. He said,
"Here what the HC has done is that...they were hearing a matter related to a death of a HC staff due to COVID due to non-following of protocols in HC. In that case, a suspended district judge files an impleading petition and produces the alleged conversation between him and Easwariah."
Bhushan submitted that the conversation between Easwariah and the District Judge was three fold:
- Easwariah asked about Judge's suspension
- Easwariah cajoled and consoled the Judge
- They spoke about allegations of Amaravati land scam, in which the relatives of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court were accused.
He insisted that nothing about the above said conversation should be a matter of enquiry and yet, if the Court decides to proceed with the matter and examine the private conversation, then there should be an enquiry into the whole thing.
"I have talked about certain land transactions by a sitting judge of this Court. Enquire into that too," Bhushan submitted.
Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Kapil Sibal had appeared for certain intervenors who were opposing Easwariah's plea.
Earlier, the Court had required Justice Eswaraiah to file an affidavit regarding alleged private phone conversation with Mr. S. Ramakrishna, a suspended District Munsif Magistrate of Andhra Pradesh, into which an inquiry has been ordered by the High Court.
In his affidavit, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, he, however, admits that the suspended District Munsif Magistrate had called him over WhatsApp on 20th of July, 2020, but that he does not know from which phone number he had called. He also denies the contention that he had, through his PA, required the said Magistrate to call him.
"I cannot say that the conversation as contained in the pen drive is the exact conversation. The voice appears to be mine and therefore, that part of what I have purported to have said appears to be correct. It is, however, possible that some parts of the conversation that took place have been edited out. Therefore, the conversation as contained in the pen drive may not be the conversation that took place with me to the extent that it is called. It would be pertinent to state here that since WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted and it does not have a recording feature, as such the recording by the suspended District Munsif magistrate of the WhatsApp audio conversation had to be through an external device, which is not a primary source and can be easily distorted using technology as has been done by Mr. Ramakrishna", the former judge has said.
He continues to assert that even the English transcription of the audio conversation as contained in the pen drive filed by Mr S. Ramakrishna before the High Court is incorrect, that it has been deliberately distorted to give a false and misleading impression with regard to the conversation. "I have provided a correct transcript of the English translation of the audio tape contained in the pen drive supplied to me", he states.
He has advanced that the conversation as he recalls with the District Munsif Magistrate was threefold: Firstly, he had sought information about the latter's suspension. Secondly, he had consoled and cajoled him for the harassment he had faced. Lastly, he had sought information from him about the Benami transactions regarding the new capital region in the state of Andhra Pradesh, which according to Justice Eswaraiah's information has been the subject matter of a Cabinet Sub-committee which recommended the formation of a SIT and subsequently, the government of Andhra Pradesh wrote to the Union of India for this investigation to be transferred to the CBI since it involved inter-state investigation and several high-ranking influential persons.
"The relatives of a senior sitting Supreme Court judge were involved in these transactions. This was information that I had received and was trying to collect more evidence with regard to it. However, subsequent to my conversation, this has become the subject of FIR, naming the two daughters of the sitting Supreme Court judge and a SLP. I have come in public in various press conferences to expose the misconduct of the Supreme Court judge for his special proximity with the erstwhile government of Andhra Pradesh. This has been stated on record in the SLP as well", submits the petitioner.
He admits that he did seek information and material from Mr Ramakrishna in that phone conversation with regard to Benami transactions involving the CRDA in Andhra Pradesh on the involvement of the relatives of the said Supreme Court judge.
"The allegations of 'conspiracy' and 'plot' are totally false and far from the truth. I have always endeavoured and continue to endeavour to protect and preserve the independence of the judiciary. These allegations are white lies and derogatory and defamatory. I am not part of any such 'conspiracy' or 'plot' and have the highest regard for the institution of the judiciary and all the judges", he asserts.
"This order was made on the basis of the applications for reopening and intervention filed by the suspended District Munsif Magistrate who had recorded the conversation, in an unrelated PIL before the High Court. The PIL was filed by an independent organisation, which has nothing to do with me. Further the order for enquiry into the conversation involving the petitioner was made by the High Court on the basis of the intervention without allowing the impleadment of the petitioner and without notice to the petitioner", it is urged.
It is argued that the impugned order directing an enquiry, into a pen drive purportedly containing a distorted WhatsApp conversation, which is secretly recorded, in a writ petition in which the petitioner is neither party nor was afforded an opportunity of being heard, is against the basic principles of law, apart from being violative of his right to privacy which is held to be a fundamental right protected under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a).