JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 12 April 2021

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 3 S.C.R.

AJUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.)

v

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6100 of 2021)

BAPRIL 12, 2021

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Public Interest Litigation: The instant special leave petition isfiled by a non-party to the writ petition PIL questioning order passedin the writ petition – Before the High Court, the Registrar GeneralCof the High Court had filed preliminary counter affidavitquestioning the genuineness of the PIL and pleaded that the petitionwas filed by political person to political gain and to malign theHigh Court – It was further stated therein that former High CourtJudge ‘VE’ (the petitioner in the instant special leave petition) hadDalso submitted a complaint with similar allegations to the Presidentof India against the Chief Justice and further stated that afterretirement, the former High Court Judge ‘VE’ had obtained postretirement office and is supporting the State Government under thecover of association maligning the High Court – High Court heardthe preliminary objection and closed the matter for judgment – AnEI.A. No.7 of 2020 was thereafter filed by one ‘SR’ alongwith hisaffidavit stating that writ petition was vexatious and was institutedmalafidely and with vested interest – The affidavit further pleadedthat the incumbent Government has unleashed a vicious propagandaagainst the judiciary to cover up its shortcomings, in which some ofFthe retired judges had become pawns in the hands of the Governmentand at their instance, under the guise of some organisations somevested interests were filing writ petitions to undermine the honesty,integrity and majesty of the judiciary – In paragraph 8, it was pleadedthat on 20.07.2020, the former retired Judge ‘VE’ spoke to him andasked him whether he was aware of the letter submitted by All IndiaGBackward Classes Federation – The transcript of the saidconversation alongwith audio recording was filed alongwith affidavit– High Court by impugned judgment requested a Retired SupremeCourt Judge of to hold out an enquiry to find out the genuineness/authenticity of the conversation contained in the pen drive – formerHHigh Court Judge ‘VE’ filed instant special leave petition – This Court granting time to him – Petitioner filed affidavit and admittedthe conversation dated 20.07.2020 and also filed the correctedtranscript of the English translation of the audio tape as AnnexureP16, which was admitted to him – There is no reason to allow tocontinue the enquiry by Retired Judge as directed by the High Courtby the impugned judgment – Authenticity and genuineness of thetranscript having been admitted to the extent as contained inAnnexure P-16, the direction by the High Court calling for reportfrom the Retired Supreme Court Judge need not be allowed tocontinue – High Court ought not to have embarked on any otherenquiry in the matter except to the maintainability of the PIL at theinstance of the writ petitioner and the conversation dated 20.07.2020filed before the High Court as well as the enquiry report soughtwas only with the above purpose – Now, English translation of thetranscript dated 20.07.2020 having been admitted by the writpetitioner, which have been filed by petitioner himself as AnnexureP-16, in event, the High Court intends to refer to the above transcript,if required, the same can be done only after giving an opportunityto the present petitioner.

Disposing of the special leave petition, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the special leave petition, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has directed for enquiry intothe transcript to find out the authenticity/genuineness of theconversation contained in the pen drive. Justice R.V.R., Retd.Judge of Supreme Court was requested to submit a report to theHigh Court as to the authenticity/genuineness of the conversationcontained in the pen drive. The object and purpose of directingthe enquiry was, thus, to find out the authenticity/genuineness ofthe conversation contained in the pen drive. This Court grantingtime to the petitioner by order dated 11.01.2021, petitionerhaving filed affidavit and admitted the conversation dated20.07.2020 and has also filed the corrected transcript of theEnglish translation of the audio tape as Annexure P16, which isadmitted to him, there is no reason to allow to continue the enquiryby Justice R.V. Raveendran as directed by the High Court by theimpugned judgment. Authenticity and genuineness of thetranscript having been admitted to the extent as contained inAnnexure P-16, the direction by the High Court calling for reportfrom Justice R.V.R. need not be allowed to continue. [Para12][372-E-H; 373-A]

ABC

D

E

F

GH

A2. The High Court in its judgment clearly observed thatthe enquiry will not have any direct bearing on the issue involvedin the main writ petition except to the extent of deciding theallegations made in paragraph 13 of the preliminary counteraffidavit. High Court had closed hearing on the preliminaryobjection regarding maintainability of the PIL on 31.07.2020 andBwhen I.A. Nos. 7 and 8 of 2020 were filed to reopen the writpetition, the question before the High Court was only with regardto maintainability of the writ petition. Now, English translation ofthe transcript dated 20.07.2020 having been admitted by the writpetitioner, which have been filed by petitioner himself asCAnnexure P-16, in event, the High Court intends to refer to theabove transcript, if required, the same can be done only aftergiving an opportunity to the present petitioner. [Paras 13, 14,15][373-A-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave PetitionD(C) No. 6100 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2020 of the HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WP(PIL) No. 168 of 2020.

Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Cheryl D’ souza, Advs. for the Appellant.

ESidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Garima Bajaj, Nikhil Bamal, SheezanHashmi, Anmol Kheta, Akshat Gupta, Zeeshan Mahmood, AnirudhWadhwa, Atul Shankar Vinod, M.P. Vinod, Vipin Nair, KarthikJayashankar, Arindam Ghosh, Anshumaan Bahadur, B.V. Balaram Das,Advs. for the Respondents.

FThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner, anon-party, to the Writ Petition PIL No.168 of 2020 questioning the orderdated 13.08.2020 passed in the writ petition.G

2. Application for permission to file special leave petition is allowed.

3. We had not issued the notice in this special leave petition,however, the respondent No.5, who was writ petitioner before HighCourt had appeared and filed a counter affidavit dated 13.01.2021.

H

JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

4. The brief facts of the case necessary to decide this specialleave petition are:- A

4.1The respondent No.5, BC SC ST Minority StudentFederation, a registered society under the provisions ofSocieties Registration Act, 1860 has filed the Writ PetitionNo.168 of 2020 as the Public Interest Litigation praying forfollowing reliefs:- B

(i) Direct the Respondent No.1 to implement its guidelinesin true spirit in order to prevent Covid-19 pandemicfrom spreading further, by its own machinery and Statemachinery in coordination to function effectively.

C

(ii) Direct the Respondent No.4 to strictly follow theguidelines issued by Respondent No.1 and their ownguidelines by utilizing the State Machinery effectivelyin order to prevent Covid-19 pandemic from spreadingfurther D

(iii) Direct the Respondent No.3 to strictly follow theguidelines issued by Respondent No.1, 4, and theHonourable Apex Court in order to prevent Covid-19pandemic from spreading further E

(iv) Direct the Respondent No.4 to declare RespondentNo.3 premises as a Red Zone/containment Zone inorder to prevent Covid-19 from spreading further

(v) Direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 herein to cause anenquiry to be conducted by a central and neutral agencyto enquire into the incidents leading to the untimelyFdeath of Late B. Rajasekhar, Registrar General (Indeath of Late B. Rajasekhar, Registrar General (In-charge) of the Respondent No.3 herein on 24/6/2020,the death of an employee working as Assistant in theV.R. Section and about 30 more employees being testedGpositive of Covid-19

(vi) Direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to consider imposinga strict curfew for at least 2 weeks by drafting paramilitary forces if need be and by providing necessarymobile medical teams and essential commodity delivery H

teams in order to prevent Covid-19 pandemic fromspreading further and in the interest of all concerned.

A

4.2The respondent No.3, the High Court of Andhra Pradeshrepresented by the Registrar General filed a preliminarycounter affidavit dated 30.07.2020. In the preliminaryBcounter affidavit, the locus of the Society to file the PILwas questioned. It was pleaded that PIL is not a genuinePIL having substantial public interest. In paragraph 13 ofthe preliminary counter affidavit, it was pleaded that petitionhas been filed by a political person to political gain and tomalign the High Court. It was pleaded that former JusticeCV. Eswaraiah (the petitioner in this special leave petition)has also submitted a complaint with the same allegations tothe President of India referred herein against the ChiefJustice. Further, it was pleaded in paragraph 13 that afterretirement Justice V. Eswaraiah had obtained a postDretirement office and after achieving the said postretirement office, he wants to support the State Governmentunder the cover of BC association maligning the High Court.It was pleaded in the preliminary counter affidavit that filingof the petition is mala fide and to achieve the obliqueintention.E

4.3The High Court heard the preliminary objection and closedthe matter for judgment on 31.07.2020. An I.A. No.7 of2020 was filed by one S. Ramakrishna alongwith his affidavitstating that writ petition is vexatious and has been institutedmalafidely and with vested interest. The affidavit furtherFpleaded that the incumbent Government has unleashed avicious propaganda against the judiciary to cover up itsshortcomings, in which some of the retired judges likeJustice V. Eswaraiah had become pawns in the hands ofthe Government and at their instance, under the guise ofGsome organisations some vested interests have been filingwrit petitions to undermine the honesty, integrity and majestyof the judiciary.

4.4A representation dated 29.06.2020 submitted by WorkingPresident of All India Backward Classes Federation ofwhich Justice V. Eswaraiah is President has also been H

JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

referred to in affidavit. In paragraph 8, it was pleaded thatPersonal Secretary of Justice V. Eswaraiah called him (ShriS. Ramakrishna) on his mobile phone on 20.07.2020 andtold him that Retired Justice V. Eswaraiah wished to speakto him and gave his phone number. It was stated in theaffidavit that during the course of conversation, Retd. JusticeV. Eswaraiah asked him whether he was aware of the lettersubmitted by All India Backward Classes Federation dated29.06.2020. The transcript of the said conversation alongwithaudio recording was filed alongwith affidavit for perusal ofthe Court. The applicant prayed that Writ Petition PILNo.168 of 2000 be reopened and suitable orders be passedas may deem fit and proper.

4.5I.A. No.8 of 2020 was filed by Shri S. Ramakrishna prayingthat applicant (Shri S. Ramakrishna, petitioner) be permittedto intervene in the Writ Petition PIL No.168 of 2020 in publicinterest.

4.6I.A. No.9 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.3 alongwithan affidavit of Registrar General, High Court of AndhraPradesh. By I.A., respondent No.3 stated that during thecourse of the proceedings, learned Advocate General ofthe State of Andhra Pradesh has raised objection regardingcontents of paragraph 13 of the preliminary counter affidavitdated 30.07.2020, so as to avoid unnecessary controversy,he may be permitted to delete paragraph 13 of preliminarycounter affidavit dated 30.07.2020, which may be substitutedby paragraph 13 as was set out in paragraph 4 of theaffidavit. The application for amendment of preliminarycounter affidavit dated 30.07.2020 was filed by respondentNo.3.

4.7The writ petitioner filed a counter affidavit to I.A. Nos. 7and 8. The High Court by impugned judgment dated13.08.2020 passed an order directing enquiry to find outthe authenticity/genuineness of the conversation containedin the pen drive. The High Court requested Justice R.V.Raveendran, a Retired Judge of this Court to hold out anenquiry to find out the genuineness/authenticity of theconversation contained in the pen drive. The High Courtheld:- AB

C

D

EF

GH

A“..................Hence, we find that it is a fit case to orderenquiry to find out the authenticity/genuineness of theconversation contained in the pen-drive. Therefore, werequest The Hon’ble Sri. Justice R.V. Raveendran retiredJudge of the Supreme Court of India to hold an enquiry tofind out the authenticity/genuineness of the conversation,Bcontained in the pen-drive..............”

A

4.8The High Court in the same paragraph with regard to enquirywhich was directed, stated following:- “.......................The enquiry is limited to find out theCauthenticity/genuineness of the conversation and third partyinterest behind the plot. However, this will not have anydirect bearing on the issue involved in the main writ petition,except to the extent of deciding the allegation made inParagraph No. 13 of the preliminary counter/preliminarywritten objections, but will be taken into consideration inDany other incidental proceedings.................”

4.9The Registrar of the High Court was directed to duplicateset of record and pen drive and send one such copy toJustice R.V. Raveendran. The request as contained in theorder of the High Court to Justice Raveendran was to theEfollowing effect:- “We request Hon’ble Sri. Justice R.V. Raveendran, RetiredJudge of Supreme Court of India, to submit a report to thisCourt on the basis of the enquiry as to the authenticity/genuineness of conversation contained in pen-drive, theFpersons who had conversation and un-disclosed interest ofthird party/parties.”

4.10Aggrieved against the above direction of the High Courtdirecting for enquiry through Justice R.V. Raveendran,Retired Judge, Supreme Court, the petitioner, Retired ActingGChief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court has filed thiswrit petition.

5. This special leave petition was taken for consideration on11.01.2021. During submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner ShriPrashant Bhushan stated that the transcription of the talk between theHpetitioner with Mr. Ramakrishna dated 20.07.2020 has been filed as Annexure P16 to the paper book. He did not dispute the conversationand prayed that the petitioner be permitted to file an affidavit with regardto conversation dated 20.04.2020. Following order was passed by thisCourt on 11.01.2021:- “Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submits that the transcription of the talk between thepetitioner with Mr. Ramakrishna dated 20.07.2020 is filed asAnnexure P16.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute theconversation. He prays that he be permitted to file an affidavit ofthe petitioner with regard to above conversation.

Let affidavit be filed.

List the matter on 18.01.2021.”

6. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11.01.2021, affidavitdated 14.01.2021 has been filed by the petitioner Justice V. Eswaraiah(Retd.). In the affidavit, it has been admitted that a suspended DistrictMunsif Magistrate of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. S. Ramakrishna called himover the Whatsapp on 20.07.2020. He, however, stated that he cannotsay that if the conversation contained in the pen drive is the exactconversation. Justice V. Eswaraiah in paragraph 4C. of the affidavitdisputed the English transcription of the audio conversation as filed byMr. S. Ramakrishna before the High Court. However, he submitted thathe is providing a corrected transcript of the talk contained in the pendrive as Annexure P-16 at pages 134-154. Paragraph 4C of the affidavitis as follows:- “4c. ...................... I have provided a corrected transcript of theEnglish translation of the audio tape contained in the pen drivesupplied to me, in the SLP paper book as Annexure P16 at pages134-154. I reiterate, this is the transcription of the audio versionof the conversation which Mr. Ramakrishna has filed in the High Court..............”

7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedcounsel appearing for respondent No.5, Shri Tushar Mehta, learnedSolicitor General has also appeared on behalf of Union of India.

8. Two applications, i.e., I.A. Nos. 3926 of 2021 and 3927 of 2021and I.A. No.1215 of 2021 have been filed by intervenors praying to bepermitted to intervene in the matter.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

372SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A9. In view of the order which is being proposed in this specialleave petition, we see no reason to allow the intervention applicationNos.3926 and 3927 of 2021 and I.A. No. 1215 of 2021. The interventionapplications, thus, are not entertained.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High CourtBcould not have entertained the I.A. No.7 of 2020 and I.A. No.8 of 2020at the instance of Shri S. Ramakrishna, a suspended Munsif when thewrit petition was already closed on preliminary objection on 31.07.2020.It is submitted that private conversation between the petitioner and ShriRamakrishna could not have been made subject matter of the writ petition.The subject matter of the writ petition is entirely different from what isCcontained in the said conversation. It is submitted that Justice V.Eswaraiah was not given a notice by the High Court and the order hasbeen passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is submittedthat High Court could not have passed any order directing for enquiry inthe transcript dated 20.07.2020 without petitioner being given anDopportunity. Learned counsel submits that petitioner since admits thetranscripts, which has been filed as Annexure P-16 pages 134-154 ofthe paper book, there is no need to hold any enquiry by Justice R.V.Raveendran, which has been requested by the High Court to conductthe enquiry.

E11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and have perused the records.

12. As noted above, the High Court has directed for enquiry intothe transcript to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the conversationcontained in the pen drive. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Retd. Judge ofFSupreme Court was requested to submit a report to the High Court as tothe authenticity/genuineness of the conversation contained in the pendrive. The object and purpose of directing the enquiry was, thus, to findout the authenticity/genuineness of the conversation contained in thepen drive. This Court granting time to the petitioner by order dated11.01.2021, petitioner having filed affidavit and admitted the conversationGdated 20.07.2020 and has also filed the corrected transcript of the Englishtranslation of the audio tape as Annexure P16, which is admitted to him,we see no reason to allow to continue the enquiry by Justice R.V.Raveendran as directed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.Authenticity and genuineness of the transcript having been admitted toHthe extent as contained in Annexure P-16, we are of the view that the direction by the High Court calling for report from Justice R.V.Raveendran need not be allowed to continue. We order accordingly.

13. The High Court in its judgment as extracted above has clearlyobserved that the enquiry will not have any direct bearing on the issueinvolved in the main writ petition except to the extent of deciding theallegations made in paragraph 13 of the preliminary counter affidavit.High Court had closed hearing on the preliminary objection regardingmaintainability of the PIL on 31.07.2020 and when I.A. Nos. 7 and 8 of2020 were filed to reopen the writ petition, the question before the HighCourt was only with regard to maintainability of the writ petition.

14. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to haveembarked on any other enquiry in the matter except to the maintainabilityof the PIL at the instance of the writ petitioner and the conversationdated 20.07.2020 filed before the High Court as well as the enquiryreport sought was only with the above purpose.

15. Now, English translation of the transcript dated 20.07.2020having been admitted by the writ petitioner, which have been filed bypetitioner 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, thesame can be done only after giving an opportunity to the present petitioner,Justice V. Eswaraiah.

16. We have not issued notice in the special leave petition neitherhave entered into the merits of the writ petition, nor expressing anyopinion on the maintainability of the Writ Petition PIL No.168 of 2020, itis for the High Court to proceed with the writ petition and decide thesame, including the maintainability of the PIL, after hearing argumentson which point the orders were reserved.

17. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

Devika Gujral

SLP disposed of.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H