REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6100 OF 2021
(DIARY No.24744 of 2020)
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This special leave petition has been filed by the
petitioner, a non-party, to the Writ Petition PIL
No.168 of 2020 questioning the order dated 13.08.2020
passed in the writ petition.
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
1
writ petitioner before High Court had appeared and
filed a counter affidavit dated 13.01.2021.
4. The brief facts of the case necessary to decide
this special leave petition are:-
4.1 The respondent No.5, BC SC ST Minority
Student Federation, a registered society
under the provisions of Societies
Registration Act, 1860 has filed the Writ
Petition No.168 of 2020 as the Public
Interest Litigation praying for following
reliefs:-
(i) Direct the Respondent No.1 to
implement its guidelines in
true spirit in order to prevent
Covid-19 pandemic from
spreading further, by its own
machinery and State machinery
in coordination to function
effectively.
(ii) Direct the Respondent No.4 to
strictly follow the guidelines
issued by Respondent No.1 and
their own guidelines by
utilizing the State Machinery
effectively in order to prevent
Covid-19 pandemic from
spreading further
2
(iii) Direct the Respondent No.3 to
strictly follow the guidelines
issued by Respondent No.1, 4,
and the Honourable Apex Court
in order to prevent Covid-19
pandemic from spreading further
(iv) Direct the Respondent No.4 to
declare Respondent No.3
premises as a Red
Zone/containment Zone in order
to prevent Covid-19 from
spreading further
(v) Direct the Respondent No.1 and
2 herein to cause an enquiry to
be conducted by a central and
neutral agency to enquire into
the incidents leading to the
untimely death of Late B.
Rajasekhar, Registrar General
(In death 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 the V.R. Section
and about 30 more employees
being tested positive of Covid19
(vi) Direct the Respondent No.1 and
2 to consider imposing a strict
curfew for at least 2 weeks by
drafting para military forces
if need be and by providing
necessary mobile medical teams
and essential commodity
delivery teams in order to
prevent Covid-19 pandemic from
spreading further and in the
interest of all concerned.
3
4.2 The respondent No.3, the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh represented by the Registrar General
filed a preliminary counter affidavit dated
30.07.2020. In the preliminary counter
affidavit, the locus of the Society to file
the PIL was questioned. It was pleaded that
PIL is not a genuine PIL having substantial
public interest. In paragraph 13 of the
preliminary counter affidavit, it was pleaded
that petition has been filed by a political
person to political gain and to malign the
High Court. It was pleaded that former
Justice V. Eswaraiah (the petitioner in this
special leave petition) has also submitted a
complaint with the same allegations to the
President of India referred herein against
the Chief Justice. Further, it was pleaded
in paragraph 13 that after retirement Justice
V. Eswaraiah had obtained a post retirement
office and after achieving the said post
retirement office, he wants to support the
State Government under the cover of BC
4
association maligning the High Court. It was
pleaded in the preliminary counter affidavit
that filing of the petition is mala fide and
to achieve the oblique intention.
4.3 The High Court heard the preliminary
objection and closed the matter for judgment
on 31.07.2020. An I.A. No.7 of 2020 was
filed by one S. Ramakrishna alongwith his
affidavit stating that writ petition is
vexatious and has been instituted malafidely
and with vested interest. The affidavit
further pleaded that the incumbent Government
has unleashed a vicious propaganda against
the judiciary to cover up its shortcomings,
in which some of the retired judges like
Justice V. Eswaraiah had become pawns in the
hands of the Government and at their
instance, under the guise of some
organisations some vested interests have been
filing writ petitions to undermine the
honesty, integrity and majesty of the
judiciary.
5
4.4 A representation dated 29.06.2020 submitted
by Working President of All India Backward
Classes Federation of which Justice V.
Eswaraiah is President has also been referred
to in affidavit. In paragraph 8, it was
pleaded that Personal Secretary of Justice V.
Eswaraiah called him (Shri S. Ramakrishna) on
his mobile phone on 20.07.2020 and told him
that Retired Justice V. Eswaraiah wished to
speak to him and gave his phone number. It
was stated in the affidavit that during the
course of conversation, Retd. Justice V.
Eswaraiah asked him whether he was aware of
the letter submitted by All India Backward
Classes Federation dated 29.06.2020. The
transcript of the said conversation alongwith
audio recording was filed alongwith affidavit
for perusal of the Court. The applicant
prayed that Writ Petition PIL No.168 of 2000
be reopened and suitable orders be passed as
may deem fit and proper.
6
4.5 I.A. No.8 of 2020 was filed by Shri S.
Ramakrishna praying that applicant (Shri S.
Ramakrishna, petitioner) be permitted to
intervene in the Writ Petition PIL No.168 of
2020 in public interest.
4.6 I.A. No.9 of 2020 was filed by respondent
No.3 alongwith an affidavit of Registrar
General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By
I.A., respondent No.3 stated that during the
course of the proceedings, learned Advocate
General of the State of Andhra Pradesh has
raised objection regarding contents of
paragraph 13 of the preliminary counter
affidavit dated 30.07.2020, so as to avoid
unnecessary controversy, he may be permitted
to delete paragraph 13 of preliminary counter
affidavit dated 30.07.2020, which may be
substituted by paragraph 13 as was set out in
paragraph 4 of the affidavit. The application
for amendment of preliminary counter
7
affidavit dated 30.07.2020 was filed by
respondent No.3.
4.7 The writ petitioner filed a counter affidavit
to I.A. Nos. 7 and 8. The High Court by
impugned judgment dated 13.08.2020 passed an
order directing enquiry to find out the
authenticity/genuineness of the conversation
contained in the pen drive. The High Court
requested Justice R.V. Raveendran, a Retired
Judge of this Court to hold out an enquiry to
find out the genuineness/authenticity of the
conversation contained in the pen drive. The
High Court held:-
“..................Hence, we find
that it is a fit case to order
enquiry to find out the
authenticity/genuineness of the
conversation contained in the pendrive. Therefore, we request The
Hon'ble Sri. Justice R.V.
Raveendran retired Judge of the
Supreme Court of India to hold an
enquiry to find out the
authenticity/genuineness of the
conversation, contained in the
pen-drive..............”
8
4.8 The High Court in the same paragraph with
regard to enquiry which was directed, stated
following:-
“.......................The
enquiry is limited to find out the
authenticity/genuineness of the
conversation and third party
interest behind the plot. However,
this will not have any direct
bearing on the issue involved in
the main writ petition, except to
the extent of deciding the
allegation made in Paragraph No.
13 of the preliminary
counter/preliminary written
objections, but will be taken into
consideration in any other
incidental
proceedings.................”
4.9 The Registrar of the High Court was directed
to duplicate set of record and pen drive and
send one such copy to Justice R.V.
Raveendran. The request as contained in the
order of the High Court to Justice Raveendran
was to the following effect:-
“We request Hon'ble Sri. Justice
R.V. Raveendran, Retired Judge of
Supreme Court of India, to submit
a report to this Court on the
basis of the enquiry as to the
authenticity/genuineness of
conversation contained in pendrive, the persons who had
9
conversation and un-disclosed
interest of third party/parties.”
4.10 Aggrieved against the above direction of the
High Court directing for enquiry through
Justice R.V. Raveendran, Retired Judge,
Supreme Court, the petitioner, Retired Acting
Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court
has filed this writ petition.
5. This special leave petition was taken for
consideration on 11.01.2021. During submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Prashant
Bhushan stated that the transcription of the talk
between the petitioner with Mr. Ramakrishna dated
20.07.2020 has been filed as Annexure P16 to the
paper book. He did not dispute the conversation and
prayed that the petitioner be permitted to file an
affidavit with regard to conversation dated
20.04.2020. Following order was passed by this Court
on 11.01.2021:-
“Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that
the transcription of the talk between the
10
petitioner with Mr. Ramakrishna dated
20.07.2020 is filed as Annexure P16.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
does not dispute the conversation. He
prays that he be permitted to file an
affidavit of the 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, affidavit dated 14.01.2021 has been filed
by the petitioner Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.). In
the affidavit, it has been admitted that a suspended
District Munsif Magistrate of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. S.
Ramakrishna called him over the Whatsapp on
20.07.2020. He, however, stated that he cannot say
that if the conversation contained in the pen drive
is the exact conversation. Justice V. Eswaraiah in
paragraph 4C. of the affidavit disputed the English
transcription of the audio conversation as filed by
Mr. S. Ramakrishna before the High Court. However,
he submitted that he is providing a corrected
transcript of the talk contained in the pen drive as
11
Annexure P-16 at pages 134-154. Paragraph 4C of the
affidavit is as follows:-
“4c. ...................... I have
provided a corrected transcript of the
English translation of the audio tape
contained in the pen drive supplied to me,
in the SLP paper book as Annexure P16 at
pages 134-154. I reiterate, this is the
transcription of the audio version of the
conversation which Mr. Ramakrishna has
filed in the High Court..............”
7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Shri
Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has also
appeared on behalf of Union of India.
8. Two applications, i.e., I.A. Nos. 3926 of 2021
and 3927 of 2021 and I.A. No.1215 of 2021 have been
filed by intervenors praying to be permitted to
intervene in the matter.
9. In view of the order which is being proposed in
this special leave petition, we see no reason to
allow the intervention application Nos.3926 and 3927
of 2021 and I.A. No. 1215 of 2021. The intervention
applications, thus, are not entertained.
12
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the High Court could not have entertained the I.A.
No.7 of 2020 and I.A. No.8 of 2020 at the instance of
Shri S. Ramakrishna, a suspended Munsif when the writ
petition was already closed on preliminary objection
on 31.07.2020. It is submitted that private
conversation between the petitioner and Shri
Ramakrishna could not have been made subject matter
of the writ petition. The subject matter of the writ
petition is entirely different from what is contained
in the said conversation. It is submitted that
Justice V. Eswaraiah was not given a notice by the
High Court and the order has been passed in violation
of principles of natural justice. It is submitted
that High Court could not have passed any order
directing for enquiry in the transcript dated
20.07.2020 without petitioner being given an
opportunity. Learned counsel submits that petitioner
since admits the transcripts, which has been filed as
Annexure P-16 pages 134-154 of the paper book, there
is no need to hold any enquiry by Justice R.V.
13
Raveendran, which has been requested by the High
Court to conduct the enquiry.
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
12. As noted above, the High Court has directed for
enquiry into the transcript to find out the
authenticity/genuineness of the conversation
contained in the pen drive. Justice R.V. Raveendran,
Retd. Judge of Supreme Court was requested to submit
a report to the High Court as to the
authenticity/genuineness of the conversation
contained in the pen drive. The object and purpose of
directing the enquiry was, thus, to find out the
authenticity/genuineness of the conversation
contained in the pen drive. This Court granting time
to the petitioner by order dated 11.01.2021,
petitioner having filed affidavit and admitted the
conversation dated 20.07.2020 and has also filed the
corrected transcript of the English translation of
the audio tape as Annexure P16, which is admitted to
him, we see no reason to allow to continue the
14
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 to
the 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 clearly observed that the enquiry will not have
any direct bearing on the issue involved in the main
writ petition except to the extent of deciding the
allegations made in paragraph 13 of the preliminary
counter affidavit. High Court had closed hearing on
the preliminary objection regarding maintainability
of the PIL on 31.07.2020 and when I.A. Nos. 7 and 8
of 2020 were filed to reopen the writ petition, the
question before the High Court was only with regard
to maintainability of the writ petition.
14. We are of the view that the High Court ought not
to have embarked on any other enquiry in the matter
except to the maintainability of the PIL at the
15
instance of the writ petitioner and the conversation
dated 20.07.2020 filed before the High Court as well
as the enquiry report sought was only with the above
purpose.
15. Now, English translation of the transcript dated
20.07.2020 having been admitted by the writ
petitioner, which have been filed by petitioner
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, the same 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 neither have entered into the merits of the
writ petition, nor expressing any opinion on the
maintainability of the Writ Petition PIL No.168 of
2020, it is for the High Court to proceed with the
writ petition and decide the same, including the
maintainability of the PIL, after hearing arguments
on which point the orders were reserved.
16
17. The special leave petition is disposed of
accordingly.
......................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
......................J.
( R. SUBHASH REDDY )
New Delhi,
April 12, 2021.
17
