The SC was hearing nine petitions, including by the Editors Guild of India and some senior journalists, seeking an independent probe into the alleged Pegasus snooping matter.
Image Courtesy: PTI
On Thursday, August 5, the Supreme Court expressed its concerns over allegations of governments using Pegasus spyware to snoop on their citizens. If reports on them are correct, the allegations are serious in nature, the SC said. The Supreme Court top court was hearing nine petitions, including those by the Editors Guild of India and some senior journalists, seeking an independent probe into the alleged Pegasus snooping matter. The apex court asked the petitioners to serve the copies of the pleas to the Union government so that somebody from the government is present before it on August 10 to accept the notice. An international media consortium has reported that over 300 verified Indian mobile phone numbers were on the list of potential targets for surveillance using Pegasus spyware by Israeli company NSO Group. Politicians, journalists and activists were among the few who were targeted with the spyware in India. However, the apex court pulled up the petitioners for not putting enough effort into filing a criminal complaint on this matter. A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant stopped short of issuing notice on the pleas and took exception that one of the petitions has made an individual (Prime Minister) a party. The bench told advocate ML Sharma, who has also filed a petition in the matter, that except newspaper reports there was no other material in his plea. “We are sorry to say but this is not the way of filing a PIL (public interest litigation). What is the material except for newspaper cuttings,” the bench said. “The problem is your petition. You have added some individual also. I cannot issue notice straightaway,” the CJI told Sharma. Answering the court's query as to why the petitioners have not lodged a police complaint if their phones were hacked, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing in the matter, said they do not know under which provision they can lodge a complaint. Datar said as per new rules under the IT Act, the complaint can be lodged for sending obscene messages on particular devices and there is no express provision under which a case can be lodged for snooping. When the bench asked why the issue has cropped up now when the matter came into light in 2019 itself, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for veteran journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar, said they came to know about it after reports were recently published. He also said that extent of surveillance was not known to them. Sibal said NSO, on its website, states its products are used by governments to tackle terror activities s. “Does it mean that government is treating journalists, academicians, activists as terrorists because only the government can purchase such products,” Sibal asked, adding he has been told that it cost around 52,000 Dollars to penetrate into a mobile phone. Kapil Sibal told the bench that it is a matter of privacy and dignity and the government should answer why they have kept quiet. “The fact is that this technology cannot be used in India unless you have purchased it. This cannot happen. And who can purchase it is only the government and government agencies,” he said. To this, CJI said the government could also mean state governments. The senior advocate said he didn't know about that and only the government will be able to inform the court on this issue. “We cannot give your lordships all the answers because we do not have all the answers. We cannot have access to these things. Therefore, it is imperative that the government comes and tell your lordships what the state of affairs is and why they have not taken action,” he said. Kapil Sibal told the bench that it is not just an internal matter but of our national security as well. “If the government said this was happening, why did they not take action against NSO Group Technology. Why did not they lodge an FIR? It is a matter of our security. It is a matter of our citizens right, he told the bench, adding, Why did the government of India keep quiet?” When he referred to a recent report about an old number of a former member of the judiciary also being there in the list, the bench said, “Truth has to come out, we don't know whose names are there.” At the end of hearing, advocate Manish Tewari told the bench that former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha has also filed a petition in the matter but it has not been listed for hearing Thursday. He urged the bench that Sinha's petition be tagged with the other pleas. The bench said the plea would be heard along with other petitions on the next date of hearing on August 10. READ: Facial recognition of students taking JEE, NEET soon? Experts flag risks
No comments:
Post a Comment