Ratan Tata Fights Back: Privacy Plea and a 'Banana Republic' Warning

Ratan Tata's response to the Radia tapes scandal came on two fronts: the courtroom and the press.

On November 29, 2010, Tata filed a petition in the Supreme Court through senior counsel Harish Salve, arguing that the publication of his intercepted conversations with lobbyist Niira Radia violated his right to privacy and asking the court to order a probe into who leaked the tapes. The matter was listed for hearing on December 13. Around the same time, the Income Tax department deposited the original recordings — 5,871 intercepted conversations from two tranches between 2008 and 2010 — with the court in a sealed cover. Salve made clear that Tata had no intention of standing in the way of the 2G investigation; his objection was to private conversations finding their way to media houses.

Tata's public position was unapologetic. In an interview with Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta, he called the tapes episode a "banana republic kind of attack on whoever one chooses," and warned that those leaking intercepted calls were "in danger of destroying the nation by clouding the investment climate." On the substance of the allegations, he stated: "Never once in our association with her have we tried to subvert policy, move policy... Never once have we used her to make payments or to seek favours."

He also hit back at his most vocal corporate critic. Rajya Sabha MP and former telecom entrepreneur Rajeev Chandrasekhar had written an open letter accusing the Tata group of being a big beneficiary of policy flip-flops, spectrum hoarding, and out-of-turn allocation. Tata's camp countered by turning the spotlight on Chandrasekhar's own record as a telecom player.

Not everyone was persuaded. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who was contesting any injunction on the tapes, argued: "These are not private conversations. These are conversations between a lobbyist and her clients... bureaucrats, journalists and ministers. These show glimpses of all kinds of fixing and deal-making... There is enormous public interest in putting these tapes out."

The clash captured the scandal's central tension: a celebrated industrialist's right to privacy versus the public's right to know how policy gets made. The courts would spend years sorting that out.