<p>“I, however, wish to reiterate that secrecy and security have been maintained and the integrity and safety of the data in electronic form have been ensured through proper checks in the systems through which the recordings have taken place,” the affidavit filed by Sushil Kumar, Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), said.<br /><br />This was in reply to Tata group chairman Ratan Tata’s petition seeking the enforcement of his right to privacy by restraining the media from publishing the transcripts of the tapes.<br /><br />Tata has sought orders restraining the publication of the transcripts of 5,851 telephonic conversations that Radia had with many, including politicians, bureaucrats and mediapersons in the course of the grant of licence for 2G spectrum.<br /><br />On initiating any action against the telecom service providers tapping the phones of subscribers and leaking them to the public, the affidavit said: “The Income Tax department has no powers with regard to the service providers. And if it is established that any service provider was responsible for the unauthorised supply of the information, the Ministry of Telecommunications or any other competent authority will have to take further action.”<br /><br />The affidavit admitted that the phone tapping was conducted on two occasions—for 60 days since October 20, 2008, and for another 60 days since May 2009—on more than 14 phones of Radia and her associates across the country. This was after seeking permission from the home secretary.<br /><br />The phone tapping was done, as a complaint was received by the Union finance minister on November 16, 2007, alleging that “Radia had within a short span of nine years built up a business empire worth Rs 300 crore, that she was an agent of foreign intelligence agencies and that she was indulging in anti-national activities.”<br /><br />Source of leakage<br /><br />The Centre assured the court that it would ensure that the rest of the conversation was kept in safe custody and probe was instituted to find out the source of the leakage. Tata had not challenged the right of the statutory agencies to intercept and record the telephonic conversations, but it was making those audios public that concerned him.<br />The matter will come up for hearing on December 13 before a bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi.</p>
<p>“I, however, wish to reiterate that secrecy and security have been maintained and the integrity and safety of the data in electronic form have been ensured through proper checks in the systems through which the recordings have taken place,” the affidavit filed by Sushil Kumar, Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), said.<br /><br />This was in reply to Tata group chairman Ratan Tata’s petition seeking the enforcement of his right to privacy by restraining the media from publishing the transcripts of the tapes.<br /><br />Tata has sought orders restraining the publication of the transcripts of 5,851 telephonic conversations that Radia had with many, including politicians, bureaucrats and mediapersons in the course of the grant of licence for 2G spectrum.<br /><br />On initiating any action against the telecom service providers tapping the phones of subscribers and leaking them to the public, the affidavit said: “The Income Tax department has no powers with regard to the service providers. And if it is established that any service provider was responsible for the unauthorised supply of the information, the Ministry of Telecommunications or any other competent authority will have to take further action.”<br /><br />The affidavit admitted that the phone tapping was conducted on two occasions—for 60 days since October 20, 2008, and for another 60 days since May 2009—on more than 14 phones of Radia and her associates across the country. This was after seeking permission from the home secretary.<br /><br />The phone tapping was done, as a complaint was received by the Union finance minister on November 16, 2007, alleging that “Radia had within a short span of nine years built up a business empire worth Rs 300 crore, that she was an agent of foreign intelligence agencies and that she was indulging in anti-national activities.”<br /><br />Source of leakage<br /><br />The Centre assured the court that it would ensure that the rest of the conversation was kept in safe custody and probe was instituted to find out the source of the leakage. Tata had not challenged the right of the statutory agencies to intercept and record the telephonic conversations, but it was making those audios public that concerned him.<br />The matter will come up for hearing on December 13 before a bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi.</p>
