Tata dissatisfied over probe into leakage of Radia tapes

New Delhi, Feb 23 (PTI) Indian industrialist Ratan
Tata has asked the apex 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 Indian 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 Indian 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 influence on center 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. PTI
RAX
ANJ