5 months ago
1
In October 2004, Tamil Nadu’s past Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was caught successful a stormy governmental concern implicit a complaint that she had recorded a telephone speech with then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil.
It each began erstwhile successful an antithetic move, the Tamil Nadu government, represented by its Chief Secretary Lakshmi Pranesh, approached the Supreme Court seeking to stall the apt transportation of Governor P.S. Ramamohan Rao earlier the completion of his tenure.
At the clip of filing of the suit, determination was nary authoritative announcement astir moving retired Mr. Rao. However, since determination were talks astir the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, which came to powerfulness astatine the Centre earlier that year, effecting immoderate gubernatorial transfers, the Jayalalithaa authorities wanted to pre-empt the anticipation of Mr. Rao’s exit.
The authorities submitted successful the apex tribunal that the DMK, which was a portion of the Centre, wanted to person a Governor who could enactment connected its diktat. “The DMK wants to alteration the Governor with a presumption to destabilising the contiguous Government by forcing the Governor to taxable a study nether Article 356 of the Constitution recommending dissolution of the Assembly,” it claimed. In its suit, the authorities sought to restrain the Centre from transferring oregon removing the Governor without the consent of the Chief Minister.
However, connected October 25, a Bench consisting of Chief justness R.C. Lahoti, and Justice G.P. Mathur, declined to assistance an immoderate ex parte interim relief. The Bench said the State authorities had rushed to the tribunal connected a Sunday for expeditious proceeding of the suit expressing an apprehension that the Governor would beryllium transferred. “Has your apprehension travel true? Was immoderate bid passed yesterday? Can a State assertion to person a close to take its Governor?” the judges asked.
The telephone conversation
Four days later, a large contention erupted erstwhile the Chief Secretary, successful an exertion made earlier the Supreme Court, reproduced excerpts from a telephonic speech betwixt the Chief Minister and Union Home Minister that took spot astir 12.30 a.m. the erstwhile time (October 28).
As per this, Patil (who passed distant connected December 12, this year) had told Jayalalithaa: “I americium atrocious to pass you of the alteration of the Governor of Tamil Nadu. I person spoken to Mr. S.S. Barnala [Governor of Andhra Pradesh] and helium has agreed [to displacement to Tamil Nadu].”
To this, Jayalalithaa asked him, “Are you consulting maine oregon are you informing me?” The Home Minister replied: “I americium informing you.”
Details of the further exchanges betwixt the 2 Constitutional functionaries were besides reproduced successful the application. The accusation furnished included Jayalalithaa’s query arsenic to whether the record regarding the Governor’s transportation was present with the President. To this, the Minister had replied: “It has gone from me. I bash not cognize wherever the record is. It could beryllium with the Prime Minister, it could beryllium with the President. The bid could beryllium issued immoderate minute.”
Jayalalithaa wanted to cognize however specified a determination was taken without consulting the Chief Minister. She told Patil: “I americium sorry, I don’t hold with your opinion. The contiguous Governor is wholly apolitical. He is simply a erstwhile Director-General of Police with nary governmental affiliation, whereas Mr. Barnala is the circumstantial nominee of [DMK leader] Mr. Karunanidhi… What transgression has the contiguous Governor committed? He is wholly just and impartial. What is the crushed for wanting to region him?”
She besides wanted to cognize from the Minister if the Governor was being removed “only due to the fact that helium did not big the Independence Day beverage party.” The second responded: “Yes. It is simply a superior mistake but I don’t privation to sermon the reasons immoderate further.”
Nonetheless, “a three-judge Bench — comprising the Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice P.P. Naolekar — declined the petition of elder counsel for the State, K.K. Venugopal, that the tribunal intervene instantly since the Governor’s removal was imminent,” The Hindu reported.
‘Breach of propriety’
Taking objection to the authorities making nationalist the telephonic conversation, Karunanidhi demanded the resignation of some Jayalalithaa and the Chief Secretary. He accused Jayalalithaa of breaching the oath of secrecy.
Patil besides told journalists helium was unhappy implicit the mode successful which the transcript of his speech was made public. He termed the speech a “privileged talk” and said helium had near the contented to the bully consciousness of the Tamil Nadu government.
“At the seniormost level, the Centre has taken a dim view” of this, a study successful The Hindu said. It added: Two precise elder Cabinet members felt that Ms. Jayalalithaa has committed a “breach of propriety’’ and acted against the tone of the oath of office. Another elder Minister is wide that “it is breach of privilege” — the speech betwixt 2 Constitutional functionaries is simply a privileged connection and ought not to person been made public. The presumption is that this ‘‘departure’’ from the accepted norms of confidentiality would not augur good for national relations.
Jayalalithaa’s response
With the contented snowballing, Jayalalithaa, connected October 31, issued a connection clarifying determination was nary signaling oregon taping of the October 28 speech betwixt her and the Home Minister. She said ‘‘some Opposition enactment leaders and a conception of the Press’’ sought to springiness a ‘‘wrong and misleading impression’’ that what was filed successful the Supreme Court was a transcript of the recorded conversation.
“I privation to clarify that I americium not successful the wont of signaling oregon taping immoderate telephonic speech with anyone,’’ Jayalalithaa said, adding, she lone ‘‘informed the Chief Secretary of the gist of the conversation’’ arsenic she recalled it, since the Supreme Court had indicated that the State authorities could attack it successful the lawsuit of a circumstantial origin of enactment connected its suit seeking a absorption to restrain the Centre from transferring the Governor.
Even the petition successful the tribunal specifically mentioned that this was a ‘‘...gist of the speech arsenic recollected by the Chief Minister...,’’ Jayalalithaa argued. “In fact, overmuch much was said connected some sides during the speech and those portions were not revealed adjacent successful the petition,” she claimed. “Therefore, I privation to reiterate that determination is nary breach of the oath of secrecy,’’ she said.
Meanwhile, Mr. Rao resigned aft the Supreme Court declined to stall his transportation and was fixed a lukewarm farewell by Jayalalithaa and her furniture colleagues astatine the Chennai airdrome earlier helium near for Hyderabad.
