2 hours ago
4
In October 2004, Tamil Nadu’s then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was caught in a stormy political situation over a charge that she had recorded a telephone conversation with then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil.
It all began when in an unusual move, the Tamil Nadu government, represented by its Chief Secretary Lakshmi Pranesh, approached the Supreme Court seeking to stall the likely transfer of Governor P.S. Ramamohan Rao before the completion of his tenure.
At the time of filing of the suit, there was no official announcement about moving out Mr. Rao. However, since there were talks about the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, which came to power at the Centre earlier that year, effecting some gubernatorial transfers, the Jayalalithaa government wanted to pre-empt the possibility of Mr. Rao’s exit.
The government submitted in the apex court that the DMK, which was a part of the Centre, wanted to have a Governor who could act on its diktat. “The DMK wants to change the Governor with a view to destabilising the present Government by forcing the Governor to submit a report under Article 356 of the Constitution recommending dissolution of the Assembly,” it claimed. In its suit, the government sought to restrain the Centre from transferring or removing the Governor without the consent of the Chief Minister.
However, on October 25, a Bench consisting of Chief justice R.C. Lahoti, and Justice G.P. Mathur, declined to grant an any ex parte interim relief. The Bench said the State government had rushed to the court on a Sunday for expeditious hearing of the suit expressing an apprehension that the Governor would be transferred. “Has your apprehension come true? Was any order passed yesterday? Can a State claim to have a right to choose its Governor?” the judges asked.
The phone conversation
Four days later, a major controversy erupted when the Chief Secretary, in an application made before the Supreme Court, reproduced excerpts from a telephonic conversation between the Chief Minister and Union Home Minister that took place around 12.30 a.m. the previous day (October 28).
As per this, Patil (who passed away on December 12, this year) had told Jayalalithaa: “I am sorry to inform you of the change of the Governor of Tamil Nadu. I have spoken to Mr. S.S. Barnala [Governor of Andhra Pradesh] and he has agreed [to shift to Tamil Nadu].”
To this, Jayalalithaa asked him, “Are you consulting me or are you informing me?” The Home Minister replied: “I am informing you.”
Details of the further exchanges between the two Constitutional functionaries were also reproduced in the application. The information furnished included Jayalalithaa’s query as to whether the file regarding the Governor’s transfer was now with the President. To this, the Minister had replied: “It has gone from me. I do not know where the file is. It could be with the Prime Minister, it could be with the President. The order could be issued any minute.”
Jayalalithaa wanted to know how such a decision was taken without consulting the Chief Minister. She told Patil: “I am sorry, I don’t agree with your opinion. The present Governor is totally apolitical. He is a former Director-General of Police with no political affiliation, whereas Mr. Barnala is the specific nominee of [DMK leader] Mr. Karunanidhi… What crime has the present Governor committed? He is totally fair and impartial. What is the reason for wanting to remove him?”
She also wanted to know from the Minister if the Governor was being removed “only because he did not host the Independence Day tea party.” The latter responded: “Yes. It is a serious mistake but I don’t want to discuss the reasons any further.”
Nonetheless, “a three-judge Bench — comprising the Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice P.P. Naolekar — declined the request of senior counsel for the State, K.K. Venugopal, that the court intervene immediately since the Governor’s removal was imminent,” The Hindu reported.
‘Breach of propriety’
Taking exception to the government making public the telephonic conversation, Karunanidhi demanded the resignation of both Jayalalithaa and the Chief Secretary. He accused Jayalalithaa of breaching the oath of secrecy.
Patil also told journalists he was unhappy over the manner in which the transcript of his conversation was made public. He termed the conversation a “privileged talk” and said he had left the issue to the good sense of the Tamil Nadu government.
“At the seniormost level, the Centre has taken a dim view” of this, a report in The Hindu said. It added: Two very senior Cabinet members felt that Ms. Jayalalithaa has committed a “breach of propriety’’ and acted against the spirit of the oath of office. Another senior Minister is clear that “it is breach of privilege” — the conversation between two Constitutional functionaries is a privileged communication and ought not to have been made public. The view is that this ‘‘departure’’ from the accepted norms of confidentiality would not augur well for federal relations.
Jayalalithaa’s response
With the issue snowballing, Jayalalithaa, on October 31, issued a statement clarifying there was no recording or taping of the October 28 conversation between her and the Home Minister. She said ‘‘some Opposition party leaders and a section of the Press’’ sought to give a ‘‘wrong and misleading impression’’ that what was filed in the Supreme Court was a transcript of the recorded conversation.
“I wish to clarify that I am not in the habit of recording or taping any telephonic conversation with anyone,’’ Jayalalithaa said, adding, she only ‘‘informed the Chief Secretary of the gist of the conversation’’ as she recalled it, since the Supreme Court had indicated that the State government could approach it in the event of a specific cause of action on its suit seeking a direction to restrain the Centre from transferring the Governor.
Even the petition in the court specifically mentioned that this was a ‘‘...gist of the conversation as recollected by the Chief Minister...,’’ Jayalalithaa argued. “In fact, much more was said on both sides during the conversation and those portions were not revealed even in the petition,” she claimed. “Therefore, I wish to reiterate that there is no breach of the oath of secrecy,’’ she said.
Meanwhile, Mr. Rao resigned after the Supreme Court declined to stall his transfer and was given a warm farewell by Jayalalithaa and her cabinet colleagues at the Chennai airport before he left for Hyderabad.
English (US) ·