Supreme Court Stays Inquiry into Private Conversation in PIL: Justice V. Eswaraiah vs. Union of India (2021)

Date of the Judgment: April 12, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 209

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a High Court order an inquiry into a private conversation that surfaces during a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), especially when the conversation isn’t directly related to the core issue of the PIL? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a retired judge and a PIL concerning COVID-19 mismanagement. The court had to decide if the High Court was correct in ordering an inquiry into a private conversation, and if this was a valid procedure. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case began with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the BC SC ST Minority Student Federation, a registered society, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PIL, filed in 2020, raised concerns about the mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically at the High Court premises. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including implementation of COVID-19 guidelines, declaration of the High Court premises as a containment zone, and an inquiry into the death of a High Court official due to COVID-19. The High Court, represented by its Registrar General, filed a preliminary counter-affidavit questioning the locus standi of the society and alleging that the PIL was politically motivated.

During the proceedings, one S. Ramakrishna filed an affidavit and an application, stating that the PIL was vexatious and filed with vested interests. He alleged that the incumbent Government was using retired judges like Justice V. Eswaraiah to undermine the judiciary. Ramakrishna also submitted a transcript and audio recording of a private conversation he had with Justice Eswaraiah, claiming it revealed a conspiracy against the High Court. The High Court then ordered an inquiry into the authenticity of this conversation, requesting Justice R.V. Raveendran, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, to conduct it. Aggrieved by this order, Justice V. Eswaraiah filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially heard preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the PIL and reserved its order on July 31, 2020. Subsequently, I.A. No. 7 of 2020 and I.A. No. 8 of 2020 were filed by S. Ramakrishna, along with an affidavit alleging that the PIL was vexatious and politically motivated. The affidavit also included a transcript and audio recording of a private conversation between Justice V. Eswaraiah and S. Ramakrishna. The High Court, based on these applications, directed an inquiry to ascertain the authenticity of the conversation, requesting Justice R.V. Raveendran to conduct the inquiry. The High Court clarified that the inquiry was to determine the genuineness of the conversation and any third-party interests involved. The High Court also stated that the inquiry would not directly affect the main writ petition, except regarding allegations made in paragraph 13 of the preliminary counter-affidavit.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework relevant to this case involves the Societies Registration Act, 1860, under which the respondent No. 5, BC SC ST Minority Student Federation, was registered. The PIL was filed under the general framework of public interest litigation, which allows individuals or organizations to approach the court for the protection of public interest. However, the specific provisions of law that were discussed in the judgment are not specified. The High Court’s power to order an inquiry is also relevant, though no specific provision was mentioned in the judgment.

Arguments

Arguments by the Petitioner (Justice V. Eswaraiah):

• ✓ The High Court should not have entertained I.A. No. 7 of 2020 and I.A. No. 8 of 2020 filed by S. Ramakrishna, a suspended Munsif, after the writ petition was already closed on preliminary objections on 31.07.2020.
• ✓ The private conversation between the petitioner and S. Ramakrishna should not have been made the subject matter of the writ petition, as it was unrelated to the core issues of the PIL.
• ✓ The High Court violated the principles of natural justice by ordering an inquiry into the transcript without giving the petitioner a notice or an opportunity to be heard.
• ✓ Since the petitioner admitted the transcripts filed as Annexure P-16, there was no need for any further inquiry by Justice R.V. Raveendran.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India and others):

• ✓ The respondent No. 5, the writ petitioner before the High Court, appeared and filed a counter-affidavit dated 13.01.2021.
• ✓ The respondent No. 3, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, questioned the locus of the Society to file the PIL, arguing that it was not a genuine PIL with substantial public interest. They also alleged that the PIL was politically motivated, aimed at maligning the High Court.
• ✓ The respondent No. 3 also referred to Justice V. Eswaraiah’s alleged involvement in supporting the State Government under the guise of a BC association to malign the High Court.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but the issues can be summarized as follows:

• ✓ Whether the High Court was justified in ordering an inquiry into the private conversation between the petitioner and S. Ramakrishna.
• ✓ Whether the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by ordering the inquiry without giving the petitioner a notice or an opportunity to be heard.
• ✓ Whether the inquiry was necessary, given that the petitioner admitted to the conversation and provided a transcript.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions. The Court’s reasoning is primarily based on principles of natural justice and the relevance of the inquiry to the main issue of the PIL. The Court’s decision is based on the specific facts of the case and the admission by the petitioner regarding the conversation.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ **Admission of the Conversation:** The petitioner’s admission of the conversation and the submission of a corrected transcript significantly reduced the need for an external inquiry.
• ✓ **Relevance to the PIL:** The Court emphasized that the inquiry into the private conversation was not directly related to the core issues of the PIL, which concerned COVID-19 mismanagement.
• ✓ **Principles of Natural Justice:** The Court highlighted the violation of natural justice principles by the High Court in ordering an inquiry without giving the petitioner a prior notice or opportunity to be heard.
• ✓ **Procedural Propriety:** The Court noted that the High Court should have focused on the maintainability of the PIL and not diverted into other inquiries, especially after closing the matter for judgment on preliminary objections.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and the records, held that the High Court’s direction for an inquiry by Justice R.V. Raveendran was not necessary. The Court noted that the petitioner had admitted to the conversation and provided a corrected transcript, thus rendering the inquiry redundant. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have focused on the maintainability of the PIL and not on other inquiries. The Court also pointed out that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before ordering the inquiry.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the High Court could refer to the transcript, if required, only after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court did not express any opinion on the maintainability of the PIL, leaving it for the High Court to decide. The Court disposed of the special leave petition accordingly.

The Court’s reasoning is based on the following points:

• ✓ The petitioner admitted the conversation and provided a transcript.
• ✓ The inquiry was not directly related to the core issue of the PIL.
• ✓ The High Court violated the principles of natural justice.
• ✓ The High Court should have focused on the maintainability of the PIL.

“The object and purpose of directing the enquiry was, thus, to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the conversation contained in the pen drive.”

“The High Court in its judgment as extracted above has clearly observed that the enquiry will not have any direct bearing on the issue involved in the main writ petition except to the extent of deciding the allegations made in paragraph 13 of the preliminary counter affidavit.”

“Now, English translation of the transcript dated 20.07.2020 having been admitted by the writ petitioner, which have been filed by petitioner himself as Annexure P-16, we are of the view that in event, the High Court intends to refer to the above transcript, if required, the same can be done only after giving an opportunity to the present petitioner, Justice V. Eswaraiah.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts should not order inquiries into private conversations that are not directly related to the core issue of a PIL.
• ✓ Principles of natural justice must be followed, and individuals should be given an opportunity to be heard before any inquiry is ordered.
• ✓ Courts should focus on the main issues of a case and not get diverted into unrelated inquiries.
• ✓ Admission of facts by a party can obviate the need for further inquiry.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment clarifies the limits of judicial inquiry in PIL matters and reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and relevance in judicial proceedings. It is expected to guide High Courts in similar situations, ensuring that inquiries are focused and necessary.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the inquiry by Justice R.V. Raveendran should not continue. The High Court, if it intends to refer to the transcript of the conversation, can do so only after giving an opportunity to Justice V. Eswaraiah to be heard.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not order an inquiry into a private conversation during a PIL proceeding if the conversation is not directly related to the core issue of the PIL, especially when the person involved admits to the conversation. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and focusing on the main issues of the case. There was no change in the previous positions of law, but this judgment clarifies the application of existing principles in the context of PILs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice V. Eswaraiah vs. Union of India & Ors. stayed the High Court’s inquiry into a private conversation, emphasizing that such inquiries should be directly relevant to the core issue of a PIL. The Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice, ensuring that individuals are given an opportunity to be heard before any inquiry is ordered. The decision underscores the need for courts to focus on the main issues of a case and avoid unnecessary diversions.