New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the presence of the central government to answer the court’s questions on the “serious issue” of alleged misuse. Pegasus spyware to spy on the phones of citizens and politicians, but expressed deep dismay that high-profile PILs seeking a judicial inquiry into the matter were filed only on the basis of newspaper reports without any authentic material.
Appearing for petitioner N Ram, senior advocate Kapil Sibal opened the arguments and said, “Pegasus is a rogue technology, completely illegal. It infiltrates our lives without our knowledge. This is the nature of technology.” Infiltration requires only a telephone call. Our phones. Then it listens, watches and surveys every minute of our movement. It is an attack on the privacy, human dignity and values of our republic. It is then our The national internet enters the backbone. It is an issue of national security. The government should answer the questions before the SC.”
An hour-long debate saw lawyers elevating their cases, leading a bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant to repeatedly seek answers to some basic questions – why did these educated and resourceful petitioners remain silent for two years Because the Pegasus issue is in the public domain since 2019? Do the petitioners, except the Editors’ Guild, have any verifiable material on the misuse of Pegasus other than relying on newspaper clippings? If the phones of some of the petitioners were hacked using Pegasus, did they file any police complaint?
After Sibal’s preliminary arguments on behalf of eminent journalist N Ram, the CJI-led bench observed, “Most of the PILs before us, except the ones of the Editors Guild, are all uniform and are based on reports from foreign newspapers and agencies.” Secondly, you all are aware that there should be prima facie credible material in the PIL which is verifiable, then only we can order inquiry or consider the writ petitions.”
No law officer was present to defend the Center on the issue that stalled the functioning of Parliament.
The bench agreed that “undoubtedly the allegations are serious, if the newspaper report is true”. But the most dramatic allegation against the central government was leveled by senior advocate Shyam Divan on behalf of Jagdeep Chhokar. He stated that the use of Pegasus “constituted war by the government against its citizens”.
The bench asked all the petitioners to submit copies of their PILs to the Central Government.
In a lengthy but systematic hearing, the bench bluntly told serial PIL petitioner ML Sharma, who was out of the block earlier: “Apart from the newspaper cutting, is there anything in your petition? What type of writ petition is this? You want That the court collect information and argue your case? This is not the way to file a PIL. What is the material other than cutting paper? You complained to the CBI on July 21. The very next day, you give them a day’s time too. No, you filed a writ petition? There is no question of allowing such a petition.”
The CJI said, “Unfortunately, from what I read from the writ petitions in May 2019, it (Pegasus issue) came in the public domain. I am not aware of any attempt or serious concern (expressed by the petitioners) regarding this issue.” All of a sudden. Now it has been reported and again it has come to light. We do not find any fault in it.”
“The other angle is, some people who have filed writ petitions claim that their phones were hacked and intercepted. They are aware of the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act and Information Technology Act to file criminal complaints. It appears, they have not said in their writ petition whether any of them have attempted to file a criminal complaint against anyone. These are the issues which you need to explain to us.’ All the petitioners admitted that they have not filed any police complaint under the Telegraph Act or the IT Act.
Sibal said that the petitioners do not have direct access to the information. “The Editors Guild’s petition details 37 verified cases of hacking using Pegasus spyware,” he said and took to court through a California court interim order on a lawsuit filed by WhatsApp against NSO.
“Pegasus spyware is sold only to government agencies and no private agency has any access to it. After a California court order, no one can deny that Pegasus infiltrated. Was it done in India? Yes, this is a question that the central government alone can answer,” he said. The CJI drew Sibal’s attention to N Ram’s plea and said that the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the California court order indicates that some Indian journalists are being spied on. “Where does the California court say so, in a California court order I found no such punishment”.
Embarrassed by the court after discovering a false statement made by N Ram, Sibal said, “You will not find it in the California court order. You will find it in the Editors Guild petition where we have named 37 verified cases.” But the CJI appeared to complicate it. “So, N Ram’s statement is not correct. If you look at N Ram’s statement, it says that the California court said that some Indians were targeted by Pegasus. But, it is not in the US court. order,” he said.
Appearing for petitioner N Ram, senior advocate Kapil Sibal opened the arguments and said, “Pegasus is a rogue technology, completely illegal. It infiltrates our lives without our knowledge. This is the nature of technology.” Infiltration requires only a telephone call. Our phones. Then it listens, watches and surveys every minute of our movement. It is an attack on the privacy, human dignity and values of our republic. It is then our The national internet enters the backbone. It is an issue of national security. The government should answer the questions before the SC.”
An hour-long debate saw lawyers elevating their cases, leading a bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant to repeatedly seek answers to some basic questions – why did these educated and resourceful petitioners remain silent for two years Because the Pegasus issue is in the public domain since 2019? Do the petitioners, except the Editors’ Guild, have any verifiable material on the misuse of Pegasus other than relying on newspaper clippings? If the phones of some of the petitioners were hacked using Pegasus, did they file any police complaint?
After Sibal’s preliminary arguments on behalf of eminent journalist N Ram, the CJI-led bench observed, “Most of the PILs before us, except the ones of the Editors Guild, are all uniform and are based on reports from foreign newspapers and agencies.” Secondly, you all are aware that there should be prima facie credible material in the PIL which is verifiable, then only we can order inquiry or consider the writ petitions.”
No law officer was present to defend the Center on the issue that stalled the functioning of Parliament.
The bench agreed that “undoubtedly the allegations are serious, if the newspaper report is true”. But the most dramatic allegation against the central government was leveled by senior advocate Shyam Divan on behalf of Jagdeep Chhokar. He stated that the use of Pegasus “constituted war by the government against its citizens”.
The bench asked all the petitioners to submit copies of their PILs to the Central Government.
In a lengthy but systematic hearing, the bench bluntly told serial PIL petitioner ML Sharma, who was out of the block earlier: “Apart from the newspaper cutting, is there anything in your petition? What type of writ petition is this? You want That the court collect information and argue your case? This is not the way to file a PIL. What is the material other than cutting paper? You complained to the CBI on July 21. The very next day, you give them a day’s time too. No, you filed a writ petition? There is no question of allowing such a petition.”
The CJI said, “Unfortunately, from what I read from the writ petitions in May 2019, it (Pegasus issue) came in the public domain. I am not aware of any attempt or serious concern (expressed by the petitioners) regarding this issue.” All of a sudden. Now it has been reported and again it has come to light. We do not find any fault in it.”
“The other angle is, some people who have filed writ petitions claim that their phones were hacked and intercepted. They are aware of the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act and Information Technology Act to file criminal complaints. It appears, they have not said in their writ petition whether any of them have attempted to file a criminal complaint against anyone. These are the issues which you need to explain to us.’ All the petitioners admitted that they have not filed any police complaint under the Telegraph Act or the IT Act.
Sibal said that the petitioners do not have direct access to the information. “The Editors Guild’s petition details 37 verified cases of hacking using Pegasus spyware,” he said and took to court through a California court interim order on a lawsuit filed by WhatsApp against NSO.
“Pegasus spyware is sold only to government agencies and no private agency has any access to it. After a California court order, no one can deny that Pegasus infiltrated. Was it done in India? Yes, this is a question that the central government alone can answer,” he said. The CJI drew Sibal’s attention to N Ram’s plea and said that the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the California court order indicates that some Indian journalists are being spied on. “Where does the California court say so, in a California court order I found no such punishment”.
Embarrassed by the court after discovering a false statement made by N Ram, Sibal said, “You will not find it in the California court order. You will find it in the Editors Guild petition where we have named 37 verified cases.” But the CJI appeared to complicate it. “So, N Ram’s statement is not correct. If you look at N Ram’s statement, it says that the California court said that some Indians were targeted by Pegasus. But, it is not in the US court. order,” he said.
.