<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Income Tax (IT) department to prepare the transcript of as many as 5,800 intercepted conversations of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia, involving prominent people from politics and media, within two months.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya also expressed its displeasure over failure of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), which undertook the exercise of recording the telephonic conversations, to transcribe the records.<br /><br />“If the department has not prepared the transcript, how the investigating officer is going to examine them,” the court told Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok, appearing for the IT department. The bench also said that unless the transcript was made, the department could not proceed with statutory procedure of destroying the tapes.<br /><br />At the outset, ASG Chandhiok submitted that the investigation was still going on so far as IT probe was concerned. Additional Solicitor General, H P Raval, appearing for the CBI told the court that transcript of all 5,800 conversations was not prepared. The court said in that case, everything would depend on conjecture and surmises only.<br /><br />“Since certain intercepted conversations concerned national security and there are some about the fiscal transactions which are dubious, so much needs to be done,” the bench said. “It is much more serious matter. We do not know what are the other matters? The CBI has investigated only one aspect (2G case),” the court said.<br /><br />The bench also went through the summary of the probe undertaken by the government as well as fresh status report filed by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate.<br /><br />The court was hearing a petition filed by chairman of Tata Group Ratan Tata in November 29, 2010 seeking action against those responsible for the leakage of the tapes. He had contended that the leakage amounted to infringement of his fundamental right to life, which includes right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.<br /></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Income Tax (IT) department to prepare the transcript of as many as 5,800 intercepted conversations of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia, involving prominent people from politics and media, within two months.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya also expressed its displeasure over failure of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), which undertook the exercise of recording the telephonic conversations, to transcribe the records.<br /><br />“If the department has not prepared the transcript, how the investigating officer is going to examine them,” the court told Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok, appearing for the IT department. The bench also said that unless the transcript was made, the department could not proceed with statutory procedure of destroying the tapes.<br /><br />At the outset, ASG Chandhiok submitted that the investigation was still going on so far as IT probe was concerned. Additional Solicitor General, H P Raval, appearing for the CBI told the court that transcript of all 5,800 conversations was not prepared. The court said in that case, everything would depend on conjecture and surmises only.<br /><br />“Since certain intercepted conversations concerned national security and there are some about the fiscal transactions which are dubious, so much needs to be done,” the bench said. “It is much more serious matter. We do not know what are the other matters? The CBI has investigated only one aspect (2G case),” the court said.<br /><br />The bench also went through the summary of the probe undertaken by the government as well as fresh status report filed by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate.<br /><br />The court was hearing a petition filed by chairman of Tata Group Ratan Tata in November 29, 2010 seeking action against those responsible for the leakage of the tapes. He had contended that the leakage amounted to infringement of his fundamental right to life, which includes right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.<br /></p>
