Spy Allegations Using Simple Guesses and Guesses from Pegasus: Government

[ad_1]

The Supreme Court government on Monday dismissed the allegations of espionage using Pegasus spyware as mere conjectures and guesses based on unsubstantiated media reports or incomplete or unsubstantiated documents.

A two-page affidavit filed by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) with the Supreme Court, however, indicated that the government would form a committee of experts to dispel the false narrative being propagated by special interests. .

However, some of the petitioners characterized the government’s response as meager and deliciously non-committal.

They urged a three-judge panel led by India’s Chief Justice NV Ramana to ask the Union Home Secretary to clarify under oath in an affidavit whether or not the government used the quality technology. military to spy on citizens.

Are the sum and the substance [petitioners] are not satisfied with your limited affidavit. They want to know in clear terms whether the government used Pegasus or not … If you want time to file a detailed affidavit, you can take time, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana addressed the canvasser General Tushar Mehta.

But Mr. Mehta said even a detailed affidavit might not appease petitioners. He asked if the petitioners would swear to withdraw from court if the government refused to use the Pegasus in another one-page affidavit. Mr. Mehta said things were not that simple. Any discussion of this issue would involve national security.

Sensitive matter

We are dealing with a sensitive subject. Attempts are being made to make it sensational, complained Mr. Mehta.

If the government is reluctant to file a detailed affidavit, how can we compel it? CJI turned to senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing senior journalists N. Ram and Sashi Kumar.

Well that would mean they don’t wanna admit or deny [to using Pegasus]… So I can say that they did not deny. Then the matter gets more serious … We want a straight answer. Has the government or any of its agencies used Pegasus? This question is not about national security. Again, if the government used Pegasus, did they use it through the Home Secretary. This still does not concern national security … So let them file a declaration under oath, replied Mr Sibal.

The Solicitor General said there was no reluctance on the part of the government. The truth must come out, Mr. Mehta said. He called the Information Technology Act, which dealt with the regime of interceptions, surveillance, etc., digital communications, beautiful legislation. Mr. Mehta said the law came into effect during Mr. Sibal’s tenure as minister.

Mr. Mehta, beauty over the years no longer becomes beautiful. It used to be beautiful, but it’s not the way you use it anymore, Mr Sibal retorted.

At one point, Judge Aniruddha Bose, on the bench, asked if there was anything other than news reports suggesting that a violation had taken place.

To this, Mr Sibal said that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said in Lok Sabha in 2019 that the social media messaging platform, WhatsApp, informed the government attempted to hack the cell phones of 1,400 users worldwide, including 121 users in India, using Pegasus.

The court postponed arguments in the case until Tuesday, while asking Mehta to think with officials about filing a detailed affidavit.

The two-page affidavit, containing just six paragraphs, was filed by an additional secretary of the MeitY. The official said he could not address all the facts and claims in the petitions due to the limited time, but nonetheless unequivocally denied the allegations they contained. He said a simple reading of the petitions revealed they were based on guesswork, conjecture drawn from unsubstantiated media reports or incomplete or unsubstantiated documents. However, the department’s affidavit, in its fifth paragraph, indicated that the government would form a panel of experts to dispel the false narrative being propagated by vested interests.

Senior lawyer Shyam Divan found the affidavit scant while senior lawyer Meenakshi Arora called it deliciously non-binding.

Sibal refutes on five points

Mr. Sibal refuted the affidavit on five points. One of them, he said, was filed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and not by the Home Office which allowed surveillance under the law.

Second, the affidavit skips over whether the government or its agencies used Pegasus. Third, he said if the government did not have time to study and respond to petitions, then the court should give them time. The court accepted this point of view.

Fourth, senior counsel countered that the affidavit did not even say whether the facts and statements in the petitions were true or false.

Last but not least, we don’t want a government that used Pegasus to form an expert committee to investigate the matter. As far as I’m concerned, the problem is simple. If the government says it used the Pegasus, there’s no need for a committee. If the government says it hasn’t used the Pegasus, then there’s no need for a committee either, Sibal said.

What is this committee for? asked CJI.

Mehta said the offer to form an expert committee was a good faith move by the government to clean the air. The judicial officer even invited the Supreme Court to frame the terms of reference of the Committee. He said the task of the committees would be highly technical. He said it would be populated by neutral experts. You have to trust a committee appointed by the government …. You have to know that everything on this issue is based on reporting, but let the committee deal with it …. Mr. Mehta submitted.

Mr Sibal argued that France has launched a nationwide investigation into Pegasus surveillance. Israel raided the offices of the NSO group, which is the creator of Pegasus. The American courts are seized of the matter.

But India always says that everything is fine … This is totally unacceptable, argued Mr Sibal.

[ad_2]