DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
12th April, 2021
JUDGES:
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy
SUBJECT
This special leave petition was filed by a non-party questioning the validity of the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petition. In this, the Supreme Court of India had to decide whether the enquiry initiated by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh into retd. Justice Eswaraiah was justified or not.
AN OVERVIEW
- This special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner, a non-party, to the Writ Petition PIL No.168 of 2020 questioning the order dated 13.08.2020 passed in the writ petition.
- The case is about an alleged phone conversation between Justice Eswaraiah and Shri. S Ramakrishna, over the conspiracy to harm the reputation of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
- The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed and enquiry by Justice R.V. Raveendran to look into the phone calls of Justice Eswaraiah
- The Supreme Court held that the object and purpose of the enquiry was to find the authencity of the conversation contained in the pendrive, which was already admitted by him. Therefore, there was no reason to continue such enquiry.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- A writ petition: It can be termed as a formal written order issued by a judicial authority who possesses the authority to do so. The meaning of the word ‘Writs’ means command in writing in the name of the Court. It is a legal document issued by the court that orders a person or entity to perform a specific act or to cease performing a specific action or deed. In India, writs are issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Public Interest Litigation-the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action started in a court of law for the enforcement of public/general interest where the public or a particular class of the public some interest (including pecuniary interest) that affects their legal rights or liabilities
ISSUES
The major issue famed by the Supreme Court was that whether there was a valid reason for the enquiry directed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court into retired Supreme Court judge Justice Eswaraiah.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- The case pertains to an alleged phone conversation between Justice Eswaraiah and Shri S. Ramakrishna, a suspended District Magistrate of Munsif, Andhra Pradesh, over a conspiracy to malign the reputation of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
- BC SC ST Minority Student Federation, a registered society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 has filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying for relief relating following of COVID-19 protocol.
- It was, however, pleaded by the High Court that the PIL was not a genuine PIL having substantial public interest.Further, it was pleaded that after retirement Justice V. Eswaraiah received a office after his retirement and after receiving the said office, he wanted to support the State Government under the cover of BC association in maligning reputation of the High Court. It was pleaded in the preliminary counter affidavit that filing of the petition is in bad faith and is done in order to achieve an ulterior motive.
- The High Court heard the preliminary objection and closed the matter for judgment on 31.07.2020. An Interlocutory application was filed by Shri S. Ramakrishna along with his writ petition stating that this writ petition was filed with bad intention and has been instituted with vested interest. The affidavit further pleaded that the Government has made this writ petition in order to create a propaganda against the judiciary in order to cover up its own shortcomings. It used some of the retired judges like Justice V. Eswaraiah like pawns in order to undermine the honesty and integrity of the judiciary.
- It was alleged that, on 20.07.2020, the Personal Secretary of Justice V. Eswaraiah called S. Ramakrishna on his mobile phone and informed him that he wanted to speak with him. Justice Eswaraiah asked him, during the course of the conversation asked him whether he was aware of the letter submitted by All India Backward Classes Federation. The transcript of the entire conversation along with audio recording was filed with the affidavit.
- The High Court by impugned judgment dated 13.08.2020 passed an order requesting Justice R.V. Raveendran, a Retired Judge of this Court to hold out an enquiry to find out the genuineness/authenticity of the conversation contained in the pen drive.
- In the affidavit, Justice Eswaraiah admitted that S. Ramakrishna called him over the Whatsapp on 20.07.2020. He, however, stated that he was not sure whether or not the conversation contained in the pen drive where the exact same conversation .
- Taking note of this aspect, the Supreme Court noticed that the object and purpose of directing the enquiry was to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the conversation contained in the pen drive and that the petitioner have filed an affidavit admitting that the conversation dated 20.07.2020 did take place and has also filed the corrected transcript of the English translation of the audio tape. Therefore, there is no reason for the enquiry by Justice R.V. Raveendran as directed by the High Court to continue. The Court held that the High Court ought not to have embarked on any other enquiry in the matter except to the maintainability of the PIL.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court observed that the object and purpose for which the enquiry was initiated was to find out the validity of the recorded conversation. After reviewing the facts the court held that the petitioner had admitted the validity of the conversation and had also submitted the correct transcript for the same. Therefore, it held that the there was no reason to pursue the enquiry.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
