Industrialist Ratan Tata on Thursday while questioning in the Supreme Court the lackadaisical attitude of the Centre in allowing free distribution and publication of his private conversations with lobbyist Niira Radia recorded by the Directorate General of Income Tax, sought a comprehensive probe into the leakage.
Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Mr. Tata, made this submission before a Bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K.Ganguly, hearing a writ petition alleging that the publication of the tapes without taking any steps to retrieve the stored material or to find out the source of leakage had infringed his right to privacy.
Mr. Salve argued that the power of the law enforcement agencies to record telephonic conversations itself was a serious encroachment upon the right of privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. He made it clear that the present petition was not designed to somehow keep back from publication any conversation to which his client allegedly was a party for any oblique purpose.
It was filed to seek redress of a wholesale violation of the Constitutional rights of a large number of persons, including the petitioner and including a host of corporate entities by the indiscriminate publication of wiretrap material procured by questionable means.
Mr. Salve did not agree with the media's claim on right to information that it was a matter of public importance. He said �the question here is whether indiscriminate disclosure of private conversations by a person alleged to be a lobbyist with a host of people [including media persons, other private persons, corporate employees, her own employees] can be justified as an exercise of the right of free speech which outweighs right to privacy, or whether it constitutes an invasion of the right to privacy.�
Counsel argued that media could not malign a person by indiscriminate publication of the conversations and say �we [media] have no idea whether the contents are true or false.� When Justice Ganguly wanted to know whether the media should verify the contents before publishing them, counsel said it should be the obligation of the law enforcing agency to ensure that the unverified material should not be made available in the public domain.
Unverified conversations
Mr. Salve submitted that the media should be restrained from publishing and broadcasting unverified conversations as the right to privacy could not be violated under the garb of freedom of the press. He said �if that is allowed, then �paparazzi' type of media would develop.� Justice Ganguly told counsel that given the technological advances made, privacy was virtually disappearing, however, legalistic the court might try to protect you (petitioner).