Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Sept 23: The Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana has given a clear indication that the Supreme Court was not in favour of the central government constituting a committee to probe into the allegations of misusing Israeli spyware Pegasus for snooping on some prominent citizens and instead itself would set up a committee for the purpose.
The Supreme Court had time and again made it clear that it was not prepared to accept the government’s stand that a detailed affidavit could not be filed on the issue due to “security reasons.” The court had plainly told the government that while the apex court was not asking the government to compromise in any way on the national security, it also could not ignore the individual complaints of spying on them using the spyware. The court only wanted the government to respond to the petitioners’ quarry whether the government had issued the authority to any of is agencies to keep a watch on some people in matters related to national security, but the government refused.
Chief justice Ramana gave the indication about the court’s stand during an exchange of words with a senior advocate CU Singh, who was appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners in the Pegasus case, while hearing a matter on another petition unrelated to the Pegasus issue on Thursday. Ramana told the lawyer to inform all other concerned advocates that the court proposed to issue the necessary orders in the Pegasus case next week.
He said the court wanted to issue the orders this week but some of the persons whose names were proposed to be included in the committee to be set up by the apex court turned down the offer due to “personal reasons.” Because of this issuance of the order was further delayed which could now be expected next week.
“We wanted to pass the order this week, but some of the members we thought of in the committee said they would not be able to for personal reasons… We will pass the order next week sometime,” Chief Justice Ramana addressed Singh. While reserving the case for interim order on September 13, the court had mentioned it would be pronounced in the next two or three days.
The court had decided to go ahead with an interim order after the government expressed reservations about filing a “detailed” affidavit responding to the allegations. The Centre had said it would be public and compromise national security. The petitioners had asked for an affidavit from the Cabinet Secretary or for the court to form a committee led by a sitting judge to probe the snooping controversy.
A Bench of Chief Justice Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli made it clear on September 13 that there would be no more “beating around the bush” in the issue. The CJI had said the court had given the government a fair opportunity to file a detailed affidavit in order to get a clear idea of its stand in the Pegasus case.
“We thought the government would file a counter-affidavit… now we will pass our interim orders,” Chief Justice Ramana had remarked. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for senior journalists N. Ram and Sashi Kumar, had found the government’s refusal to file a detailed affidavit “unbelievable.”
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta for the government had reasoned that a public discourse on whether a particular software was used or not would alert terrorists. He had urged the court to allow the government to form a committee of “domain experts” who would look into the allegations of snooping orchestrated against citizens, including journalists, activists, Ministers, parliamentarians and others.
The Solicitor-General had assured the court that the committee members would have “no relationship” with the government and would place their report before the Supreme Court. “The Committee report will have to withstand the Supreme Court’s judicial scrutiny… I am not averse to an enquiry. The government takes individuals’ plea of violation of their privacy seriously. It has to be gone into, it must be gone into… It is the feeling of the government that such an issue cannot be placed on affidavit. It has to be gone through by a committee. It concerns national security,” Mehta had submitted.
He had said the government could not afford to “sensationalise” such an “important” issue. He objected to assertions by petitioners that the “government was denying protection to its own citizens” or was “assaulting democracy.” The petitioners, however, had opposed the government request to allow it to set up the committee and instead wanted the apex court to set up a committee with technical experts under its own supervision to probe into the matter. The petitioners were apprehensive that a committee set up by the government might end up with the same conclusion as the government had for long indicated and close the issue citing “national security concerns.”
Justice Kant had put matters in perspective by observing that while the court was equally concerned about national security, it could not turn a deaf ear to concerns about privacy raised by citizens.
Reserving its order, the three-judge bench headed by the CJI had said on September 13, “We are…not interested in any manner or in any way to know the issues which are concerned about the security or the defence or any other national interest issue. We are only concerned, in the face of allegations that some software was used against some particular citizens, journalists, lawyers etc, to know whether this software has been used by the government, by any method other than permissible under the law.”
The pleas seeking an independent probe are related to reports of alleged snooping by government agencies on eminent citizens, politicians and scribes by using Israeli firm NSO’s spyware Pegasus.
