Former HC judge files affidavit in phone conversation case

Former Andhra Pradesh High Court judge, Justice V. Eswaraiah, has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court contending {that a} “deliberately distorted” model of his non-public phone conversation with a suspended judicial officer turned the idea for the State High Court to launch an inquiry right into a “conspiracy” in opposition to the upper judiciary.

Justice Eswaraiah, who’s the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission, mentioned the allegations of “conspiracy” and a “plot” in opposition to the judiciary derived from the contents of the conversation had been mainly “white lies”, derogatory and defamatory to him.

He mentioned some elements of your entire conversation had been presumably edited out.

The High Court, on August 13, had ordered a judicial inquiry by former Supreme Court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, into the phone chat.

The High Court had termed the conversation an try to “malign” a senior sitting Supreme Court judge and the then Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Justice Eswaraiah had appealed to the apex courtroom in opposition to the High Court order.

On January 11, a three-judge Bench of the apex courtroom led by Justice Ashok Bhushan requested Justice Eswaraiah, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, to file an affidavit concerning the phone conversation.

In his affidavit, Justice Eswaraiah mentioned “my admission or denial of the private conversation with the suspended district magistrate Mr. Ramakrishna is immaterial in deciding the present SLP as the High Court order is challenged on the ground that it is untenable in law and violative of my right to privacy, which is held to be a fundamental right.”

Senior advocate Harish Salve and advocate Vipin Nair, for an intervenor-advocate, P. Samuel John, had objected to Justice Eswaraiah saying “there was nothing private about the conversation.”

But Justice Eswaraiah, in his affidavit, mentioned he had not dedicated against the law. There was no grievance filed by anyone on the idea of the non-public conversation, he reasoned.

The affidavit mentioned the High Court order for an inquiry was primarily based on a pen drive handed over by Mr. Ramakrishna. The pen drive allegedly contained the conversation.

However, Justice Eswaraiah mentioned it couldn’t be confirmed whether or not the “conversation as contained in the pen drive is the exact conversation”.

“The voice appears to be mine. It is possible that some parts of the conversation have been edited out. Therefore conversation contained in the pen drive may not be the exact conversation,” he mentioned in the affidavit.

Besides, Justice Eswaraiah identified that the conversation happened on WhatsApp, which is end-to-end encrypted. Hence, the recording would have been finished by Mr. Ramakrishna by an exterior gadget. This gadget, the previous judge mentioned, was not a major supply of the conversation and may very well be simply distorted utilizing know-how.

He mentioned the English translation of the conversation given by the suspended judicial officer was “deliberately distorted to give a false and misleading impression about the conversation.”