Friday, July 25, 2025
37.6 C
Delhi
Friday, July 25, 2025
- Advertisement -corhaz 3

Supreme Court Agrees to Probe Pegasus Allegations, Asks Why Its Use on ‘Anti-Nationals’ Is Problematic

On Tuesday, April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court questioned petitioners on whether the government’s use of Israeli military-grade Pegasus spyware for security purposes against “anti-national elements” was improper. “What is wrong if the country used that spyware for security reasons against anti-national elements? There is nothing wrong with having spyware. Against whom it is used, is the point,” Justice Surya Kant, heading a Bench with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, addressed petitioners, who include senior journalist N. Ram.

The court’s observation followed senior lawyer Dinesh Dwivedi’s statement that the “basic question” in this case was whether the government owned Pegasus and if it was being used to illegally spy on private individuals, such as judges and journalists. According to Justice Kant, “private civilians'” right to privacy must be safeguarded against government monitoring.

“But we cannot compromise the security of the nation, especially in the present scenario,” Justice Kant emphasised during the nearly 20-minute hearing which came a few days after the Pahalgam terrorist attacks. “Terrorists cannot have any privacy rights,” agreed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The petitioners, who were represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Mr. Dwivedi, and others, have requested that the final conclusions of a technical committee established by the highest court be made public. The committee used digital forensics to identify malware on mobile phones that were handed to it. Copies of a supplementary study that former Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran provided to the highest court, which included recommendations for improving current laws and practices pertaining to surveillance and protecting rights including privacy and cyber security, were also requested by the petitioners. Nearly three years ago, the Supreme Court received these reports in sealed covers.

After reviewing the technical committee report, a Special Bench led by then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana briefed the court orally in August 2022 that five of the 29 phones the technical committee had inspected had been found to be infected with “some malware.” Mr. Divan recalled this in an open court. The senior attorney recalled that the committee’s finding that the Center was “not cooperative” had also been communicated by the Bench. Mr. Mehta strongly opposed to this submission.

Speaking on behalf of journalist and petitioner Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Mr. Sibal stated that there was further evidence today in the shape of a U.S. District Court ruling stating that India was one of the nations where Pegasus was used for surveillance. He sought the release of redacted copies of the technical committee report in order to at least know if Pegasus was used on the phones which were submitted for examination.

The people who had caught Pegasus surveillance and turned in their phones for examination had a right to know “whether they were hacked or saved from it,” according to Justice Kant. The Bench requested that the attorneys give a list of names of people who turned in their phones to the technical committee after believing they had been hacked using Pegasus.

“Some individuals want to know from the report ‘whether I am saved or not’… You are entitled to know from the report whether you were hacked or not? To that extent we can tell whether you are saved or hacked. It can be an objective exercise… You can ask ‘am I there in the surveillance – yes or no?’ If no, you are saved,” Justice Kant observed.

According to Mr. Divan, if the state had spied on its own people using the malware, the situation would have been grave. “This is a very serious situation. I can show that this particular spyware was used against citizens of India, against journalists, including judges. We have repeatedly been asking for a listing of the case. The entire report should be placed in the public domain. It is an open court system here,” Mr. Divan persisted.

The court refused to “disclose even a single word which may affect the sovereignty and security of the nation,” asserting that these were allegations. “But if anyone has apprehensions, they must be adequately responded to. But it should not be made a document of discussion in the streets. Where individuals have been affected, we will examine the question of release of those portions [in the report], provided they do not affect the security of the nation… With the scenario happening now, we have to be careful,” Justice Kant said. The court listed the case on July 30 for further hearing.

More articles

- Advertisement -corhaz 300

Latest article

Trending