Date:08/02/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/02/08/stories/2008020859271200.htm

Front Page

Phone tapping: notice to Amar Singh, Mulayam

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh and the former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mulayam Singh, as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them in connection with the conversations recorded in the telephone tapping incident of 2006.

In February 2006, on a petition from Mr. Amar Singh, the court banned the electronic and the print media from telecasting or publishing unauthorised and illegal transcripts of the tapped telephone conversations in compact discs or tapes involving Mr. Amar Singh or any other person.

A three-Judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal issued the notice on an intervention application filed by a public-spirited person Devendra Mandavawala, who alleged that the telephonic conversations, naming judges, would amount to interference in the administration of justice.

The Bench dispensed with their personal appearance in the court. It also issued notice to Mr. Amar Singh on an application from the Centre for Public Interest Litigation for vacating the restraint order passed on the media.

Solicitor-General G. E. Vahanvati submitted that the government had framed guidelines on telephone tapping and the petition could be disposed of in terms of these guidelines.

Appearing for the CPIL, Prashant Bhushan said he had heard the conversations in the CD and that most of the conversations related to shady deals. Contending that the public had a right to know the conversation, he pleaded for vacating the ban order.

The CJI told the counsel: “Suppose the illegal tapping CD is allowed to be published in the electronic and print media then the media will be flooded with such tapes.”

Appearing for Mr. Mandavawala, senior counsel K.T. S. Tulsi said undisputedly it had come on record that a conversation had taken place between Mr. Amar Singh and Mr. Mulayam Singh. Since the conversation naming judges had not been denied it would amount to interference in the administration of justice.

Mr. Tulsi said “how can a person [Mr. Amar Singh] committing a crime expect the court to come to his rescue. It [contents of the conversation] calls for strict condemnation as it gives a wrong message that one can manipulate with the judiciary. The court should suo motu issue notice for upholding the majesty of the judiciary. No one can pollute the fountain of justice by these kinds of conversations.”