The proceedings in the trial court were adjourned sine die as the special CBI court was holding the trial of the cases arising out of the alleged 2G scam which was decided on December 21, 2017, acquitting all the accused.
The high court directed that the defamation case be listed before the magistrate concerned on February 3 and added that as the proceedings have remained stayed for over three years, the trial court is directed to expedite the matter and preferably conclude it within one year.
The journalist, whose alleged conversation with Radia was also published by the news magazine, had challenged the order of the magistrate's court adjourning sine die the hearing in the defamation case filed by him.
Taking note of the December 21 judgement of the trial court in the 2G cases, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said since there has been a change in the circumstances which earlier prevented the media house from accessing the tapes, the magistrate's court order adjourning sine die the defamation case filed by journalist Vir Sanghvi needed to be recalled.
More From This Section
In terms of the orders of the Supreme Court, the original recordings were kept under lock and key of its Secretary General during pendency of the 2G case.
The media house had published the story on November 29, 2010 purportedly extracting certain tapped conversation allegedly between him and other individuals.
The high court said that if the media house, in its defence, wishes to summon, produce or to prove the recorded conversation contained in the tapes, it would be open to them to summon it from the CBI or the Income Tax authorities, which have been made available copies of the recording by the apex court's order.
"In case there is any impediment in the media house seeking production of the recordings from the CBI or the Income Tax authorities, it would be open to the media house to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate directions," it said.
The journalist had filed the complaint case against the media house claiming that the extracted conversation was not correct and the alleged tape recordings, relied on by it and also made available on its website, were doctored and tampered.
The counsel for the media house had contended before the high court that as per law, truth is a defence to an allegation of defamation.
To establish that the published conversation was the correct transcript of what is contained in the tapes, it would be necessary for the media house to summon and prove before the trial court the original of the tape recordings, the counsel said.
The issue of Radia tapes had reached the apex court when two petitions were filed before it.
The conversations were recorded as part of surveillance of Radia's phone on a complaint to the then finance minister on November 16, 2007 alleging that within a span of nine years, she had built up a business empire worth Rs 300 crore.
The other petition, filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), had sought that these transcripts be made public in larger public interest.