JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 12-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.)
v
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6100 of 2021)
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
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
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
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
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
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
High Court Judge ‘VE’ filed instant special leave petition – This
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 364
364
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
365
Court granting time to him – Petitioner filed affidavit and admitted
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
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
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,
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
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
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
by Justice R.V. Raveendran as directed by the High Court by the
impugned judgment. Authentic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.