Tata Chief Ratan Tata has asked the Supreme Court to order a probe by an independent agency into the leakage of his tapped telephonic talk with corporate lobbyist Niira Radia expressing dissatisfaction over the ongoing investigation.
"I submit that an inquiry by an independent agency only can meet the need of the situation and not by two functionaries of any one government department," he said in a fresh counter-affidavit in reply to the government's stand.
The government had filed its affidavits earlier on December 9, 2010 and January 31, 2011 in replies to his petition for the probe into the leakage and for the protection of his fundamental right to privacy, linked to the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Tata expressed dissatisfation over the ongoing probe by the Income Tax authorities, claiming various lacunae, limitations and inconsistencies as well as its mechanism.
The industrialist pointed out that the government in its affidavit on December 9 last and susbsequently on January 31 had claimed that the probe was already on while the Finance Ministry's official order for appointment of two senior officers to probe the matter was issued only on December 27.
This implies that there could have been no enquiry prior to that (December 27), said Tata terming it as a "discrepancy".
"This matter of discrepancy is for the Centre to explain," he said.
He, however, added that "if the government has ordered an enquiry, it is submitted that it is a step in the right direction, albeit not sufficient."
Delving into the limitations of the mechanisim of the probe, Tata, whose petition is listed for hearing tomorrow, said, "The enquiry is limited to the Income Tax department and not to other departments such as the Enforcement Directorate, DRI, IB, CBI, who may be approached by officials of the Income Tax department and (the inquiry) cannot cover them since they are administratively independent of the Ministry of Finace."
Pointing out the government's averment in its December 9 affidavit that if a service provider is found to have a role in leaking the transcripts, the telecommunication ministry will have to be approached for the further action, Tata said, "Thus the enquiry, which is sought to be done, is inadequate."
He termed the probe as inadequate also because, the government in its December 9 affidavit had contended that "there is no reason to believe that telephonic intercepts have been leaked from the Income Tax department."
"It is apparent that the limited nature of enquiry ordered by the government does not redress my grievances raised in the writ petition at all," said Tata.
Tata also lamented that the government has not spelt out its steps for retrieving the leaked transcripts.
"The government in its December 9 affidavit does not deal with the remedial action taken by it to retrieve such (leaked) material. Rather it suggests that it is not possible for the government to take steps to retrieve various copies (of leaked transcripts)," he said.
Tata also filed in the apex court two more affidavits in response to those filed by media houses and publishers of Outlook and Open journals, which had published the transcripts of his talks with Radia and which the apex court specifically made parties to its hearings on Tata's petition.
He refuted assertions by one of the media houses that his petition has become infructuous and said his petition has "raised substantial issues of law and poublic importance" and they are "still alive."
In his two counter-affidavits in reply to those by media houses, Tata asserted that "a balance must be struck" between the right to privacy, linked to the fundamental right to life and liberty and that of the right of the freedom of speech and expression in relation to conversation between two non-official persons.
Tata sought to restrict media's right and contended that "confidential and private matters which are submitted to court for their adjudication cannot be published by the media merely because the material is available in court records."
In his affidavit in reply to those by media houses, Tata said having published these transcripts for pure sensationalism, the two media organisations are now seeking top justify them claiming them to be in the public interest although they have no basis to assume the geniunness of the contents."
Tata pointed out to media houses that "his petition questions the right of the media to to publish transcripts (including salacious gossips) of intercepted telephonic conversations without being accountable for the falacity of the contents merely because of some parts of the conversations (unverified) contains allegations against the persons who are in public life."
Tata said that publishing unverified contents of a tapped telephobnic conversation, despite its interception by government authorities, does not fall in the realm of investigative journalism as it does serve no public interst.
"Investigative journalism based on queries made by the the media on matters such as good governance, corruption or baleful influnce on centre of powers would undoubtedly be a matter of public interest," said Tata.
"However, the publication of unverified allegation of corruption or alleged influence on centre of power (contained in the telepohone conversation tapped by the law enforcement agencies) without a shred of investigation into the truth of alleagtions is irresponsible and unjustified," he said.
