Author: J. Venkatesan
Publication: The Hindu
Date: February 3, 2011
URL: http://www.hindu.com/2011/02/03/stories/2011020366841500.htm
The public interest outweighs private interest
and even assuming that there are some so-called private conversations in the
Niira Radia tapes, their publication could not be challenged, Outlook magazine
told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
In its response to the notice on industrialist
Ratan Tata's petition questioning the publication of the tapes on the ground
that his right to privacy had been violated, the magazine said: "There
are no conversations that are strictly private or separate from the other
conversations that have been reported."
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K.
Ganguly posted the matter to February 24 after senior counsel Harish Salve,
appearing for Mr. Tata, sought time to file an additional affidavit. The court
took on record the affidavits filed by Outlook and Open magazines.
Earlier, Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati produced
in a sealed cover the original complaint on the basis of which income tax
authorities tapped the conversations of the corporate lobbyist.
Vinod Panicker, authorised signatory of Outlook,
in his affidavit said: "The recorded conversations that are [the] subject
matter of the present proceedings evidently deal with matters of serious public
interest and concern, since these conversations relate to matters of good
governance, possible corruption in the highest echelons of government, and
secret and baleful influences on centres of power. It is absolutely essential
that such matters be open for public debate."
The affidavit said Mr. Tata "is a public
figure, being a captain of industry who controls influences and affects the
fortunes of widely held public corporations, and who has by his own volition
entered into public debate by writing open letters on the subject matter of
2G spectrum allocation to other public figures."
'No specific facts'
On his allegation that corporate houses owning
media businesses were conducting surrogate corporate wars against companies
in which he had an interest, the affidavit said: "The petitioner fails
or deliberately omits to spell out any specific facts or connection or nexus
between the media houses that have released the petitioner's conversation
and the alleged corporate wars being waged against his companies."
It said: "Ms. Radia was suspected of
being involved in a criminal conspiracy which makes it in the highest public
interest to disclose her activities and conversations. The petitioner has
sought to block and gag the media by indirectly asking governmental authorities
to do so, while saying that it is not his intention to block the publication
of certain conversations."
Contending that the "law does not permit
imposing of prior restraint upon publication of matter which is the subject
matter of this writ petition," the affidavit sought the dismissal of
Mr. Tata's petition.
'Legitimate interest'
Open magazine publisher R. Rajmohan, in his
affidavit, said: "The conversations published were in the context of
a public debate regarding the role of lobbyists and their proximity to influential
people, and therefore, the public had a legitimate interest in receiving information
regarding the same."
It said: "The publication of the conversations
was only to show the influence commanded by lobbyists, and an integral part
of establishing the said influence was to show their relationship with corporate
entities among others which enhanced their influence."
