“If the issue is relating to the national interest, then not highlighting it or keeping it quiet for the purposes of appeasing certain bigwigs is absolutely not doing the job.” This critical remark on media comes from Suren Uppal, Supreme Court lawyer and petitioner in the Essar tapes scandal. He was expressing his disappointment at media’s selective amnesia on the controversy.

Newslaundry spoke to Uppal at his Noida office and discussed the history of the case, the media coverage and how corporates allegedly rigged one of the highest level enquiry committees in the country.

Newslaundry: Can you talk briefly about how you met Mr Albasit Khan (former Essar employee and purported whistle-blower) and how this entire case started?

Suren Uppal: Mr Albasit Khan met me on January 6, 2016 in Delhi. Prior to that, I did not talk to him, but through my erstwhile clients, he had tried to get in touch and sought my time to discuss this matter. January 6, for the first time I happened to hear from him in person as to what this case was all about. He also made me listen to a few minutes of the audios. After listening to that and after hearing from him with respect to all that this case may probably entail, I agreed to take up this matter.

NL: Now Mr Khan has distanced himself from you and has apparently gone back into the Essar fold. Can you speculate about what made him turn?

SU: He used to share conversations with me, after a few days of us sending the [caution] notices to Essar House. Those conversations are very explicit that certain officials and management of Essar group were almost pleading with him that “kindly sit down and let’s have a one-to-one meeting. Let us try to close it down, whatever you want we can fulfill that, don’t take it further”. I remember on one or two occasions Albasit said that, “I did not know what it [the tapes] contained, but now I know, now it has taken a legal recourse. So if you want to meet, meet my lawyer”. Then the reply was that, “If that is how it has to be done, it can always be done, but primarily, boss wants to meet you”, which means Prashant Ruia wanted to meet him. So, what I could figure out from all this was there was a lot of persuasion on the part of Essar, to take him in their fold.

NL: What do you think about the media coverage, considering that for a scandal this big, the response from the media has been very subdued?

SU: I think any journalist worth their salt must realise that there could be bigwigs involved in the controversy, there could be owners involved, but the religion of media is primarily to be fair. If the issue is relating to the national interest, then not highlighting it or keeping it quiet for the purposes of appeasing certain bigwigs is absolutely not doing the job. It has been very unprofessional and unethical on the part of certain media houses who have just blacked out this particular development.

NL: Did you notice any pattern in the blacking out of the story? India Today has done a good job, but Times Now has not even mentioned the controversy once. Moreover, CNN-News18 and NDTV have been understandably quiet considering the former is owned by Mukesh Ambani and the latter owes him a lot of money.

SU: I think that’s a very fake journalism. Times Now happened to have a telephonic enquiry being made to me. … I really believe that somewhere or other corporate houses can own media, but there has to be a lot of regulatory means or ethical means of ensuring that [the media do their job].

NL: Do you mind sharing what Times Now asked you?

SU: The very first question they asked me was that there is an allegation of extortion. My answer was obviously that you should be ashamed of your journalism. You better do your homework and if you have any shame left being a professional, come to me and talk to me and I’ll show you 200 proofs if you want to really digest them, that how much of influence was there on me, how much of pressure or insinuation was there on me to have given up this case.

NL: From all the conversations you’ve heard, which ones do you think are the most important?

SU: I wouldn’t want to go into the specifics, but there are one or two things which could be critical. The parliament constitutes JPCs – Joint Parliamentary Committees – for investigating. It is one of the highest level enquiry bodies which can be constituted as per the law. So, one could hear that one of the JPCs which had been constituted was in fact working totally under the influence of one of the corporate houses to ensure that the company doesn’t get named, it doesn’t get implicated. Then there are other conversations that relate to certain aspects of telecom ministry, which were being decided or policies were being framed. Then, things related to the public interest not only being exchanged, but getting dictated by certain corporate houses.

NL: Did you file a PIL in the Delhi High Court because you don’t think the government ordered probe will have any meaningful consequences?

SU: I don’t have the right, nor can I pass a judgement about the enquiry. I’m sure it’ll be good. But if we go by whatever conversations are already there in the recordings, they do not present the status of our legislature, parliament, judiciary, executive – at state and centre – in good light. So if that is the case, it doesn’t leave much room for any person to think that everything is going to be fair, so far as the investigation is concerned. Whosoever is conducting the enquiry and whosoever is being investigated, if it is under the court’s supervision, then there would be no scope of fingers being raised against the credibility of the investigation.