Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Background
A student-welfare society had filed a PIL before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking directions to curb the spread of Covid-19 at the High Court premises, following the death of a Registrar General and an employee and the infection of about 30 other staff. In its preliminary counter-affidavit opposing the PIL's maintainability, the High Court Registry alleged it was a politically motivated petition linked to retired Justice V. Eswaraiah, and separately a suspended Munsif court judge filed applications placing before the High Court a pen-drive recording of a conversation allegedly involving Justice Eswaraiah; the High Court then directed another retired Supreme Court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, to enquire into the authenticity of that recording. Justice Eswaraiah, though not a party to the original PIL, approached the Supreme Court challenging this enquiry direction, saying it was ordered without any notice to him and went beyond the scope of the PIL, which had already been closed for hearing on the question of maintainability.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since Justice Eswaraiah had himself since filed an affidavit admitting the conversation and placing on record an agreed corrected transcript, there was no longer any need for Justice Raveendran's enquiry into the recording's authenticity, as its purpose stood satisfied by the admission. It held the High Court should not have gone beyond deciding the PIL's maintainability to order a free-standing enquiry into the conversation, and that if the High Court wished to rely on the transcript at all, it must first give Justice Eswaraiah an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court expressly did not decide the merits or maintainability of the PIL itself, leaving that for the High Court to determine after hearing arguments, and disposed of the special leave petition without issuing formal notice in it.
Lesson Learnt
Courts conducting preliminary proceedings (like deciding maintainability of a PIL) should confine themselves to the question actually before them and must give an affected person a fair hearing before relying on material, such as a disputed recording, that could affect their reputation or rights.