Reviews have been not been flattering. The video “deserves a PG-13 rating”, says one who saw it. “It’s a bit like a bad Hindi movie which usually shields anything remotely sexual with a flower or some such inane object.”

It’s of bad quality, agree cinephiles and self-styled connoisseurs of this genre, lamenting on the static single-camera with poor sound.

Apparently those who need to know of its contents already do, since it’s been doing the rounds in the corridors of power for a week now. Under the guise of sensible debate, saucy conversations are afire about whether the interaction was ‘consensual’.

The real questions should instead be: Is it the public’s right to be informed of what happened, or is it breach of privacy? Are public figures fair game or are we chasing a scandal in the salacious mould of Clinton-Lewinsky or Tiger Woods? What about a honey trap?

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that what happened here was a quid pro quo. Rivals seem to be using the opportunity to suggest something larger without any evidence.

That it has not remained private is regrettable for the parties and their families. For the moment, there appears to be no public interest whatsoever in the fiasco.

A judge, in her wisdom, restrained the content from becoming public. Otherwise prurient and ill-advised programmers might have tuned it in for prime time viewing, putting at risk vulnerable audiences.

To be noted here is that the court order and petition are not available via any public channels. It is also not clear whether the restraint order applies only to the news organisations named in media reports citing the order, or to John Doe (as an “Ashok Kumar” order) and the public (and internet) at large.

In any case, Twitter has been ablaze even before the news properly broke, with few bothering to hold back on any front. Much fun has been had at the alleged protagonists’ expense.

Reliable people have come to know that a criminal investigation is proceeding into who sent the big city into a tizzy with this sensational leak.

It has also been reliably learnt that the man in question made two appointments with Mrs G and failed to show up. Later on Monday he skipped a guest appearance before a business lobby group (CII). It turned out that the organisers, in what appears to be a strange effort to maintain a similar measure of scandal at the event, replaced him with a former union minister of state, who, incidentally, was made to sweat for his social equity before resigning.

For now, beyond the titillation, there is speculation on whether a dirty hand was involved in shining light on the sordid saga. Was it the dirty tricks department of the rival camp? Does this have anything to do with the top minister from the home state of the main protagonist? How about any over enthusiastic anti-graft crusaders given that one of the concerned parties headed a key Parliamentary standing committee? Or is it only, as has been reportedly claimed, a blackmail attempt gone wrong?

Postscript

Meanwhile, beneath the dome of the temple of justice a doyen stood before their lordships. The Supreme Court was continuing its constitution bench hearing on media coverage of sub judice cases.

CJI Kapadia: Why hasn’t the parliament implemented the recommendations of the law commission (on press reporting of sub judice matters)?

Ram Jethmalani: Well, you know my Lord, politicians these days do all sorts of things.

Coda

Unsolicited advice: If you haven’t watched the video, don’t worry. You’re not missing much.

In Camera Proceeding: Power corridor juice served fresh.

Photo by Eva Rinaldi