Regional
The fire eventually extinguished itself without external intervention.
Digital Desk: A sudden fire engulfed an enormous 150-year-old tree in Howly, caught everyone’s attention, and generated public alarm and interest in the area. The inc
Ratan Tata had requested the Supreme Court for a copy of the government's report outlining how the tapes, the subject of the scandal that became known as the "Radia tapes," were leaked in August 2012.
Digital Desk:
color:#2E2E2E">After an eight-year hiatus, the Supreme Court will hear
industrialist Ratan Tata's plea asking for an inquiry into the 2010 audio tape
leak involving former corporate lobbyist Niira Radia.
According to Ratan Tata,
the revelation violated his right to privacy.
In 2011, he submitted
the petition. The Supreme Court last heard it in 2014.
As part of a tax inquiry
more than ten years ago, Niira Radia's phone calls with businessmen,
journalists, government officials, and other people in high positions were
recorded. When her phones were initially bugged in 2008 and then again in 2009,
the businessman Mukesh Ambani was a customer of her PR agency, Vaishnavi
Corporate Communications, which is no longer in business.
Ratan
Tata had requested the Supreme Court for a copy of the government's report
outlining how the tapes, the subject of the scandal that became known as the
"Radia tapes," were leaked in August 2012.
In
2010, the media covered several of Ratan Tata's interactions with Niira Radia.
After that, he sued the government, claiming that the disclosure of the videos
violated his right to privacy.
The
Supreme Court declared that privacy is a constitutional right in a historic
decision in August 2017. Nine judges came to the same judgment, however, they
gave different justifications for it.
The administration, which had claimed that the Constitution does
not protect individual privacy as an inherent fundamental right, suffered a
significant blow as a result of the decision regarding the right to privacy.
Ravi Shankar Prasad, who was the law minister at the time, asserted
that judges had determined that "privacy as a fundamental right is subject
to reasonable constraints."
Leave A Comment