Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tata seeks comprehensive probe into Niira Radia tapes leak by J Venkatesan

Tata seeks comprehensive probe into Niira Radia tapes leak by J Venkatesan

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Feb 24, 2011   modified Modified on Feb 24, 2011
Industrialist Ratan Tata, while questioning in the Supreme Court the Centre's lackadaisical attitude 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 Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K.Ganguly, hearing a writ petition alleging that the publication of the tapes without taking any step to retrieve the stored material or to find out the source of leakage had infringed upon his right to privacy.

Mr. Salve argued that the power of the law enforcement agencies to record telephone conversations itself was a serious encroachment upon the right of privacy guaranteed by Article 21. 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.

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.

Mr. Salve, citing an earlier Supreme Court judgment, argued that publishing a material obtained in violation of the Official Secrets Act was not protected by the right to speech. Senior counsel Anil Divan, appearing for the Outlook magazine, intervened during Mr. Salve's arguments and contended that there was nothing private in these conversations once they were put in the public domain.

The Hindu, 25 February, 2011, http://www.hindu.com/2011/02/25/stories/2011022564991700.htm


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close