Democracy is strong in India. Which is committed to protect the right to privacy as a fundamental right of all citizens. The Government of India has said this in response to several media reports. Media outlets that have reported on the phone surveillance of journalists, social workers and ministers around the world.
A group of 17 media outlets, including The Guardian, The Washington Post and The War, claimed that thousands of people around the world were targeted using a phone hacking software called Pegasus. Israeli company NSO Group, which makes Pegasus, has claimed that phone hacking software is sold only to government buyers.
In response to The Guardian, the Indian government described the reports as “fishing operations”. With government surveillance of some individuals, there is no strong basis or truth to support that claim. The central government said, “The promise of freedom of expression as a fundamental right is the foundation of India’s democratic system. We have always stood for an informed civil society with an emphasis on a culture of open dialogue.
Hindustan Times tried to contact the Union Ministry of Information Technology regarding the matter. But there was no response. However, ANI has released a screenshot of the Indian government’s response to a journalist. It said, “The question referred to the Government of India indicates that the report is fabricated. Not only is there a lack of information, but a decision has already been taken. It seems that you have played the role of investigator, lawyer and judge at the same time.” “The whole affair is a sign of poor research work and a lack of perseverance from the respected media.”
The Centre’s response further said that the Ministry of Information Technology, including Parliament, had detailed that there was “no unauthorized surveillance” by government agencies. On the part of the Government of India, it is important to understand that government agencies have a well-established protocol for surveillance solely in the national interest. which is clearly stated. That protocol includes the approval and supervision of high-ranking central and state government officials. The response claimed that each monitoring was approved by the responsible authority, namely the Union Home Secretary.
.