Read Time: 13 minutes
Supreme Court while hearing pleas seeking Independent probe into the Pegasus spyware controversy, today, directed to serve copies of petition to the Centre and listed the matter for next hearing in the coming week.
Court, while not completely denying the merits of the petition, asked why was it not raised at the first instance in 2019 and why no individual complaints were made under the Statutory provisions.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant, while hearing the matter, said,
“We want to ask certain questions, except the Editors guild petition – You all know that there is admissible material, verified material on which we can entertain WPs. May 2019 this came into light. I do not know why, any serious concern regarding this issue was not raised then. Suddenly we have these petitions. People who have filed these WPs are reputed people, they should have done more focussed effort to put more material, at the same time we cannot say there is no material as there are reports on it. Another angle is, some of the people have not gone into individual cases, they have come up for their cases in these PILs – you know there are provisions under the IT Act, Telegraph Act. Why are no complaints lodged under it?"
Court was informed that the Union is served with the copy of the petition on behalf of one of the Petitioners.
On the petition by Advocate ML Sharma, Court said,
“Except newspaper cuttings, is there anything else in the WP? You think we will collect information and argue your case! Sorry to say, I do not know why you have filed this PIL”
“Other than this, you made a complaint to CBI on July 21 and the very next day you file a WP?,” added Justice Surya Kant
Comprehensive submissions were made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for N. Ram, Ms. Meenakshi Arora for CPI (M) leader John Brittas, Senior Adv. Shyam Divan for Jagdeep Chokkar, Mr. Datar for 2 Journalists in a connected matter.
“It infiltrates into our lives without our knowing and it hears, watches every moment. It causes assault on privacy and dignity and penetrates into backbone of the Internet," submitted Kapil Sibal.
“Mr. Sibal, can I ask one clarification here – Somewhere I read this organisation somewhere clarified that we sell these software to Govts. It is for them how to use”, The CJI said.
But the California Court even questions that – Sibal read out the relevant part of the finding by the Court.
Court asked that alleged snooping have been reported for Indian Journalists also, alleges N. Ram’s petition – “where can that be found in the California Court’s judgement?”
“If the Govt. of India says that this is happening, why did they not take action against NSO. Why did they keep quiet? Why did they not lodge FIR? It is the matter of Citizens Rights, Citizens Dignity”, submitted Sibal.
Referring to Page 32 of Mr. N. Ram’s petition, Mr. Sibal elaborated the potential threats caused by Pegasus software.
Learned Senior Counsel Meenakshi Arora for CPI (M) leader John Brittas, submitted, “It is a categorical statement made by NSO that only sovereign entity can take this software”
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Jagdeep Chokkar, whose phone had been allegedly hacked.
“These are not just media reports being made here and there – Two National Governments have taken action – The USA and France have taken action on the basis of these reports. So these are media reports which enjoy a very very high degree of credibility.”
“We seek a response from the Government as an interim relief and a deeper investigation into the issue. It is necessary for the Cabinet Secretary to make affidavits in the present case,” added Mr. Divan
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for a connected matter, submitted that, this is a matter is huge dimension -
“This is not a case of a single person’s privacy being barged into – If a foreign entity is involved, the Government of India should have responded or taken action on its own. The whole country should be ensured that their internets will not be compromised like this.
This involves Constitutionality also, not just Criminality.”
Senior Advocate, Arvind P Datar appearing for 2 Journalists, submitted on statutory provisions for individual reliefs and the added contours of Right to Privacy as enunciated by the Puttaswamy judgment.
A batch of petitions have been filed seeking similar relief in the present matter, by Adv. ML Sharma, CPI MP John Brittas, N Ram of The Hindu, Jagdeep Chokkar, Narendra Mishra, Rupesh Kumar Singh, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, SNM Abdi and the Editors Guild of India.
Questions of law raised in the petition by Advocate ML Sharma against the Union:
On 19th July 2021, a consortium of 17 international media organizations including an Indian news portal published an investigation around a leaked list of phone numbers from across the world, named the Pegasus Project.
These numbers in the leaked list are allegedly the “target list” of phones hacked /to be hacked by the Pegasus spyware product sold by Israel’s NSO Group.
The target list said to contain the numbers of 136 prominent politicians, judges, journalists, businessmen, rights activists etc.
NSO Group, who owns ‘Pegasus Spyware’, was sued by WhatsApp and Facebook in 2019 before the US Californian Court for exploiting its platform to carry out remote surveillances. NSO claimed sovereign immunity as its products were sold only to governments and state agencies. However, The Californian Court ruled in favour of WhatsApp and dismissed NSO’s claim.
Also Read: 5 alleged victims of Pegasus move Supreme Court to declare the software’s usage Unconstitutional
Case Title: ML Sharma v. PM Narendra Modi | N. Ram & Ors v. UOI | John Brittas v. UOI | Editors Guild of India v. UOI
Please Login or Register
