When Jayalalithaa denied recording a phone conversation with Home Minister Shivraj Patil

In October 2004, Tamil Nadu’s then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was caught in a tumultuous political situation over accusations of recording a phone conversation with the then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil.

It all started when the Tamil Nadu government, represented by its Chief Secretary Lakshmi Pranesh, took an unusual move and approached the Supreme Court to stop the possible transfer of Governor PS Ramamohan Rao before the completion of his term.

At the time the case was filed, no official announcement had been made regarding Mr. Rao’s relocation. However, as there were talks regarding the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government that came to power at the Center earlier the same year, affecting some governorship transfers, the Jayalalithaa government wanted to pre-empt the possibility of Mr. Rao leaving.

The government stated in the high court that the DMK, which is a part of the Centre, wants to have a Governor who can act as per its dictates. “DMK wants to replace the Governor with the aim of destabilizing the present Government by forcing the Governor to submit a report recommending the dissolution of the Assembly under Article 356 of the Constitution,” he alleged. In its case, the government sought to restrain the Center from transferring or removing the Governor without the consent of the Chief Minister.

However, on October 25, a Bench comprising Chief Justice RC Lahoti and Justice GP Mathur refused to grant any ex parte interim relief. The bench said the State government had rushed to the court on Sunday for a speedy hearing of the case, expressing apprehension that the Governor would be transferred. “Has your concern come true? Was any order issued yesterday? Can a State claim that it has the right to elect its Governor?” the judges asked.

phone call

Four days later, a major controversy broke out when the Chief Secretary, in his application to the Supreme Court, published excerpts of a telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister that took place around 12.30 pm the previous day (October 28).

Accordingly, Patil, who passed away on December 12 this year, told Jayalalithaa: “I am sorry to inform you that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has changed. I spoke to Mr. SS Barnala. [Governor of Andhra Pradesh] and he agreed [to shift to Tamil Nadu].”

Jayalalithaa then asked him: “Are you consulting me or informing me?” The Minister of Internal Affairs replied: “I am informing you.”

Details of other meetings between the two Constitutional officials were also included in the application. Among the information presented was Jayalalithaa’s question on whether the file regarding the Governor’s transfer is currently with the President. To this, the Minister replied: “It’s gone from me. I don’t know where the file is. It may be with the Prime Minister or the President. An order may be issued at any time.”

Jayalalithaa wanted to know how such a decision was taken without consulting the Chief Minister. He told Patil: “I’m sorry, I don’t agree with your opinion. The current Governor is completely apolitical. He is a former Director General of Police without any political affiliations, whereas Mr. Barnala is being nominated privately.” [DMK leader] Mr. Karunanidhi… What crime did the present Governor commit? It is completely fair and impartial. What makes you want to dismiss him?”

He also wanted to know from the Minister whether the Governor was removed “simply for not hosting an Independence Day tea party.” The second replied: “Yes, this is a serious mistake, but I do not want to discuss the reasons further.”

However, “A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice, RC Lahoti, Justice CK Thakker and Justice PP Naolekar rejected the plea of ​​the State advocate general, KK Venugopal, seeking immediate intervention of the court in view of the impending impeachment of the Governor.” Hindu reported.

‘Violation of security’

Taking exception to the government’s public disclosure of the phone call, Karunanidhi demanded the resignation of both Jayalalithaa and the Chief Secretary. He accused Jayalalithaa of violating her oath of secrecy.

Patil also told reporters that he was unhappy with the way the text of his speech was made public. He described the meeting as a “privileged conversation” and said he left the matter to the discretion of the Tamil Nadu government.

The report stated, “At the highest level, the Center approached this situation with a pessimistic perspective.” Hindu in question. He added: Two very senior Cabinet members felt Ms Jayalalithaa had “breached the rules of office” and gone against the spirit of her oath of office. Another senior Minister made clear that this was “a breach of privilege”; A conversation between two Constitutional officials is a privileged communication and should not be made public. The view is that this “departure” from accepted privacy norms would not bode well for federal relations.

Jayalalithaa’s reply

As the issue snowballed, Jayalalithaa released a statement on October 31 clarifying that there was no recording or tape recording of the meeting between her and the Home Minister on October 28. He said that “some Opposition Party leaders and a section of the press were trying to create a “false and misleading impression” that what was submitted to the Supreme Court was the transcript of the recorded conversation.

“I would like to clarify that I am not in the habit of recording or recording any telephone conversation with anyone,” Jayalalithaa said, adding that as she recalled, she only “informed the Chief Secretary about the substance of the conversation” as the Supreme Court had stated that the State government can approach it if there is a specific cause of action in its case seeking a direction to restrain the Center from transferring the Governor.

Even in the petition in the court, Jayalalithaa had specifically stated that it was ”…summary of the conversation recalled by the Prime Minister…”. “In fact, much more was said on both sides during the meeting and these parts were not even disclosed in the petition,” he claimed. “Therefore, I would like to emphasize once again that there is no violation of the oath of confidentiality,” he said.

Mr Rao, meanwhile, resigned after the Supreme Court refused to stay his transfer and was given a warm farewell by Jayalalithaa and her cabinet colleagues at the Chennai airport before leaving for Hyderabad.

It was published – 17 December 2025 08:00 IST