'State Can't Get Free Pass Every Time National Security Is Raised': SC Orders Pegasus Probe

Ruling that the state does not get a free pass every time the spectre of national security is raised, the Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed a committee comprising three technical members and supervised by its retired judge Justice R V Raveendran to conduct a ¡°thorough inquiry¡± into allegations of use of Pegasus software for unauthorised surveillance.

Violation of rights "could have a chilling effect"

The allegations that Israeli-made Pegasus software was used to snoop on journalists, activists and politicians in India are about the violation of fundamental rights and "could have a chilling effect", the Supreme Court said today, setting up an inquiry headed by a retired judge.

AFP

A "vague denial from the government is not sufficient", the Supreme Court said sharply, asserting that the government could not give any clarity despite being given "ample opportunity" to do so. There had been no specific denial by the Centre, it said.

The court also commented on the government's statements on lawful interception for national security purposes. The Supreme Court added that "in the task of upholding of fundamental rights, the state cannot be an adversary".

About independent probe

Retired Supreme Court Justice RV Raveendran will head the inquiry and an IPS officer will assist him, along with officials from the National Forensic University. The committee has to "expeditiously probe" the charge and report to the court by the next hearing two months later.

The court declined the government's request to set up an expert panel, saying it would "violate the settled judicial principle against bias".

PTI

The judgment

Chief Justice NV Ramana began the judgment with a quote from George Orwell's 1984 -"If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself."

"This court gave ample time to the Centre to disclose all information regarding the Pegasus attack since 2019. However only a limited affidavit was filed throwing no light. If the Centre made its stand clear the burden on us would have been less," said the Chief Justice.

"In today's world, restrictions on privacy is to prevent terrorism activity and can only be imposed when needed to protect national security. But the state cannot get a free pass every time by raising national security concerns. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although this court should be circumspect in encroaching the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called against judicial review. Centre should have justified its stand here and not rendered the court a mute spectator. The court will not encroach upon national security but that does not make the court a mute spectator."

Representational Image: Getty Images

Multiple petitions have called for an investigation into allegations that Israeli Pegasus spyware- sold only to governments - was used to target opposition leaders, journalists and others.

Right to privacy raked up

"Without allowing ourselves to be consumed into political rhetoric, we have never refrained from protecting people from their fundamental rights being abused," said the judges.

"Privacy is not just for journalists and politicians but also about the rights of individuals. There are restrictions on the right to privacy but those restrictions have to stand constitutional scrutiny," said the judgment.

The judges said it was an "uphill task" to choose independent members, and it was done based on data gathered "personally".

For more on news and current affairs from around the world please visit Indiatimes News.