INDIA. Delhi: The Tata group chairman and business veteran Ratan Tata had filed a petition in 2010, against former corporate lobbyist Niira Radia.
The petition seeks an investigation into the leak of audio tapes- more than 5,000 conversations of industrialists, senior journalists, government officers and other honorary people holding hierarchy posts were tapped as part of a tax investigation between 2007-2009.
Later, those recordings were intentionally leaked. In 2010, a popular magazine published the transcripts of all those confidential conversations.
Niira, at that time, used to work with a private firm Vaishnavi Corporate Communications, which gradually dissolved and now doesn’t exist, trapped industrialist Mukesh Ambani in 2008 and then in 2009. In August 2012, Ratan Tata sought help from the apex judiciary body, demanding the protection of his right to privacy.
The last hearing into the case happened back in 2014. The Information Technology (IT) department had tapped Radia’s calls over finance ministry complaint orders.
The entire controversy is further coined as “Radia tapes”. In August 2012, Tata questioned the judiciary body for a copy of the government report and an explanation of how the tapes were leaked, which is against acts and is a privacy invasion.
Back in August 2017, the Supreme Court declared ‘that privacy is a constitutional right.’ Nine judges looking after the case ended up their conversation with different conclusions. In a fresh state, a three-judge bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narsimha will look after the petition. However, Radia’s PR firm had become extinct.
The government however had a major setback, later discussing that the Constitution does not guarantee individual privacy as an inalienable fundamental right. The Law Minister then, Ravi Shankar Prasad had shown accretion with the judges agreeing to them that privacy as a fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Also Read:Delhi High Court Has Ordered Telegram To Disclose Information on Channels Violating Copyright Laws
