JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

364                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    3 S.C.R. 364                 [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A                     JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.)
                                         v
                           UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                  (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6100 of 2021)
B                                APRIL 12, 2021
          [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
             Public Interest Litigation: The instant special leave petition is
      filed by a non-party to the writ petition PIL questioning order passed
      in the writ petition – Before the High Court, the Registrar General
C
      of the High Court had filed preliminary counter affidavit
      questioning the genuineness of the PIL and pleaded that the petition
      was filed by political person to political gain and to malign the
      High Court – It was further stated therein that former High Court
      Judge ‘VE’ (the petitioner in the instant special leave petition) had
D     also submitted a complaint with similar allegations to the President
      of India against the Chief Justice and further stated that after
      retirement, the former High Court Judge ‘VE’ had obtained post
      retirement office and is supporting the State Government under the
      cover of association maligning the High Court – High Court heard
      the preliminary objection and closed the matter for judgment – An
E
      I.A. No.7 of 2020 was thereafter filed by one ‘SR’ alongwith his
      affidavit stating that writ petition was vexatious and was 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
F     the retired judges had become pawns in the hands of the Government
      and at their instance, under the guise of some organisations some
      vested interests were filing writ petitions to undermine the honesty,
      integrity and majesty of the judiciary – In paragraph 8, it was pleaded
      that on 20.07.2020, the former retired Judge ‘VE’ spoke to him and
      asked him whether he was aware of the letter submitted by All India
G
      Backward Classes Federation – The transcript of the said
      conversation alongwith audio recording was filed alongwith affidavit
      – High Court by impugned judgment requested a Retired Supreme
      Court Judge of to hold out an enquiry to find out the genuineness/
      authenticity of the conversation contained in the pen drive – former
H     High Court Judge ‘VE’ filed instant special leave petition – This
                                         364
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       365


Court granting time to him – Petitioner filed affidavit and admitted       A
the conversation dated 20.07.2020 and also filed the corrected
transcript of the English translation of the audio tape as Annexure
P16, which was admitted to him – There is no reason to allow to
continue the enquiry by Retired Judge as directed by the High Court
by the impugned judgment – Authenticity and genuineness of the
                                                                           B
transcript having been admitted to the extent as contained in
Annexure P-16, the direction by the High Court calling for report
from the Retired Supreme Court Judge need not be allowed to
continue – High Court ought not to have embarked on any other
enquiry in the matter except to the maintainability of the PIL at the
instance of the writ petitioner and the conversation dated 20.07.2020      C
filed before the High Court as well as the enquiry report sought
was only with the above purpose – 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, in event, the High Court intends to refer to the above transcript,
                                                                           D
if required, the same can be done only after giving an opportunity
to the present petitioner.
      Disposing of the special leave petition, the Court
      HELD: 1. The High Court has directed for enquiry into
the transcript to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the             E
conversation contained in the pen drive. Justice R.V.R., 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           F
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, there is no reason to allow to continue the enquiry       G
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, the direction by the High Court calling for report
from Justice R.V.R. need not be allowed to continue. [Para
12][372-E-H; 373-A]                                                        H
366            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A            2. The High Court in its judgment 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
B
      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. 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
C     Annexure P-16, 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. [Paras 13, 14,
      15][373-A-E]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
D     (C) No. 6100 of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2020 of the High
      Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WP(PIL) No. 168 of 2020.
            Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Cheryl D’ souza, Advs. for the Appellant.

E           Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Garima Bajaj, Nikhil Bamal, Sheezan
      Hashmi, Anmol Kheta, Akshat Gupta, Zeeshan Mahmood, Anirudh
      Wadhwa, Atul Shankar Vinod, M.P. Vinod, Vipin Nair, Karthik
      Jayashankar, Arindam Ghosh, Anshumaan Bahadur, B.V. Balaram Das,
      Advs. for the Respondents.

F           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
            1. 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.
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 High
      Court had appeared and filed a counter affidavit dated 13.01.2021.

H
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       367
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       4. The brief facts of the case necessary to decide this special     A
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   B
            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.         C
            (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                                                   D
            (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          E
                 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      F
                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
                                                                           G
                positive of Covid-19
            (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
                                                                           H
368     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A               teams in order to prevent Covid-19 pandemic from
                spreading further and in the interest of all concerned.
      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
B           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
C           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
D           retirement office and after achieving the said post
            retirement office, he wants to support the State Government
            under the cover of BC 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.
E
      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
F           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
G           some organisations some vested interests have been filing
            writ petitions to undermine the honesty, integrity and majesty
            of the judiciary.
      4.4   A representation dated 29.06.2020 submitted by Working
            President of All India Backward Classes Federation of
H           which Justice V. Eswaraiah is President has also been
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        369
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

          referred to in affidavit. In paragraph 8, it was pleaded that     A
          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
                                                                            B
          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          C
          as may deem fit and proper.
    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.                                                         D
    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        E
          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           F
          counter 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          G
          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:-                                                            H
370            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A                 “..................Hence, we find that it is a fit case to order
                  enquiry to find out the authenticity/genuineness of the
                  conversation contained in the pen-drive. 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,
B
                  contained in the pen-drive..............”
            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
C                 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
D                 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
E                 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 pen-drive, the
F                 persons who had 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
G                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
H     petitioner with Mr. Ramakrishna dated 20.07.2020 has been filed as
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               371
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Annexure P16 to the paper book. He did not dispute the conversation                A
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           B
       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.                           C
              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          D
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           E
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 Annexure P-16 at pages 134-154. Paragraph 4C of the affidavit
is as follows:-
       “4c. ...................... I have provided a corrected transcript of the
                                                                                   F
       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                G
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.                                              H
372            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           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.
              10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court
B     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
C     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
D     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.
      Raveendran, which has been requested by the High Court to conduct
      the enquiry.
E            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
F     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
G     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 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
H     the extent as contained in Annexure P-16, we are of the view that the
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            373
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

direction by the High Court calling for report from Justice R.V.                A
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.          B
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             C
embarked on any other enquiry in the matter except to the maintainability
of the PIL at the 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          D
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.
                                                                                E
       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.                                        F
       17. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.


Devika Gujral                                                SLP disposed of.
                                                                                G




                                                                                H