Ratan Tata vs Niira Radia Tapes: After 8 years, SC to hear case that shook India's corporate and media world

Industrialist Ratan Tata's petition, asking for an investigation into the leak of audio tapes in 2010 involving former corporate lobbyist Niira Radia, would come up for hearing in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The issue of Radia tapes had reached the top court when two petitions were filed before it.

One was filed by Ratan Tata claiming that some of these conversations, being private, should not be allowed to be made public. And the other petition, filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), had sought that these transcripts be made public in the larger public interest.

The 84-year-old industrialist had filed the petition in 2011 and the matter was last heard in 2014. Today's hearing would happen after a gap of eight years.

Background

Niira Radia, once known as an influential corporate lobbyist, had landed in controversy following the leak of her alleged taped conversations with prominent politicians, businessmen and media persons.

Subsequently, she wound up her PR business comprising among other entities of Vaishnavi Corporate Communications, which handled various clients including the Tata Group and Unitech and Neucom Consulting, which managed the account of Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries.

The conversations were recorded as part of surveillance of Radia's phone on a complaint to the then Finance Minister on November 16, 2007, alleging that within nine years she had built up a business empire worth Rs 300 crore.

The government had recorded 180 days of Radia's conversations – first from August 20, 2008, for 60 days and then from October 19 for another 60 days. Later, on May 11, 2009, her phone was again put on surveillance for another 60 days following a fresh order given on May 8.

Tata's conversations with Radia were among those carried by the media in 2010. Later, he took the government to court for infringement on his right to privacy.

After that, the SC -- in August 2017 -- had ruled that privacy is a constitutional right.

(With inputs from PTI)