Former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh’s petition alleging illegal leaks of his private phone conversations has put the central government and Reliance Infocom on the backfoot with the Supreme Court today asking them to file statements on certain serious questions involved.
While the court asked the central government to inform what action it took against the service provider, Reliance Infocom, the telecom operator itself was asked to produce original documents which formed the basis for its affidavit before the court. The company maintains that it acted on orders from the Delhi Police. The government maintains that it had not given authorisation for phone-tapping and the orders were forgeries.
The bench consisting of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice A K Ganguly observed that the affidavits filed by most parties were vague and “apology” for affidavits. They said it was “startling” to see that someone goes to the service provider with a fabricated letter and the company starts intercepting private conversations. The more serious aspect is that an order was fabricated to launch the illegal operation. According to rules, only a principal secretary in the home ministry can authorise monitoring and interception of private conversations with adequate reasons to do so.
The judges asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati who made the complaint and sought interception. He had no ready answer and said he would provide the name at the next hearing on February 9. He denied that the government had authorised the tapping of Amar Singh’s phone. Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, for the Delhi government, submitted that the service provider acted on “forged orders” and those involved in the conspiracy were being tried in a criminal court in Delhi.
Amar Singh moved the court in 2006 alleging that some of his political opponents with the help of some unscrupulous elements had tapped his phone conversations. His plea for an investigation was before the court for five years. His counsel, Harish Salve, said today that the illegal tapping happened because the government and Reliance had a “cosy relationship” in this matter.
It was alleged that Reliance had engaged certain persons for contacting the Delhi Police to get sanction from a police officer, who was not authorised to do so. In a manner which is yet to be revealed in the court, some orders were obtained for interception and Reliance acted on it. The taped conversations appeared in the media in 2005.
The Solicitor General said four persons who acted for the main players in the interception were being tried for cheating, forgery and conspiracy. Counsel for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Prashant Bhushan, submitted that only small fries were being prosecuted while the main actors had not been touched.
