The Supreme Court in the case Pranesh Rajamanickam vs Union of India and others observed and has refused to entertain a plea wherein seeking judicial probe into the alleged voice clips of Tamil Nadu Minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan in which he had allegedly made remarks about the amassing of wealth by the family of TN Chief Minister MK Stalin.
The bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in the case observed and has termed the plea as bogus and it has been stated that the Court cannot be made into a ‘political platform’.
The bench of CJI Chandrachud in the case observed that this being an absolute bogus petition. Therefore, there is allegedly an audio clip in terms of which the former Finance Minister refers to the family of the CM and there has been no evidentiary value. This being is hearsay at best.
The petitioner, Pranesh Rajamanickam submitted before the court that Thiagarajan was changed as the finance minister due to the voice clips. If it not being the voice of him then why was he changed?
The bench comprising of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in the case observed and has stated that the Court cannot go behind the political decisions relating to changing of portfolios of ministers.
The petitioner in the plea averred that as the voter in Tamil Nadu, he is being entitled to know the reasons behind the decisions and contended that a judicial enquiry was necessary.
The bench of C JI Chandrachud stated that what being the actionable material you have? On the basis of some audio clip, you want us to have a commission of inquiry? The Article 32 petition for investigating an audio clip? This court will not use this as a political platform.
The petitioner came back again seeking a direction to send the audio clips to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, after the bench dictated the order of dismissal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
