Pegasus case | Supreme Court panel could examine allegations

[ad_1]

India’s Chief Justice NV Ramana on Thursday indicated the Supreme Court’s intention to form a committee to examine allegations that the government used Israel-based Pegasus software to spy on citizens.

The revelation came when the Chief Justice informed lead counsel CU Singh, who represented one of the petitioners in the Pegasus case, that the court wanted to issue orders in the case this week but couldn’t because some of the members he had shortlisted for the committee were not available for personal reasons.

Chief Justice Ramana has said the court will now issue orders in the Pegasus case next week.

explained | Pegasus and surveillance laws in India

We wanted to pass the order this week, but some of the members we thought about in the committee said they couldn’t do it for personal reasons … We will pass the order next week, the judge in Chief Ramana addressed Mr. Singh.

CJI asked Mr. Singh to brief other lawyers on the case. While reserving the case for an interim order on September 13, the court said it would be issued within 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 Center had said this would be public and jeopardize national security.

The petitioners had requested an affidavit from the Secretary to the Cabinet or for the court to form a committee headed by a sitting judge to investigate the espionage controversy.

A bench by Chief Justice Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli made it clear on September 13 that there would be no more pot-rounds in this issue.

CJI had said the court gave the government a fair opportunity to file a detailed affidavit in order to get a clear picture of its position in the Pegasus case.

We thought the government would file a cross-affidavit now that we pass our interim orders, noted Chief Justice Ramana.

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing veteran journalists N. Ram and Sashi Kumar, found the government’s refusal to file a detailed affidavit unbelievable.

The government’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta believed that a public discourse on whether or not to use a particular software would alert terrorists. He urged the court to allow the government to form a committee of experts in the field to examine allegations of orchestrated espionage against citizens, including journalists, activists, ministers, parliamentarians and others.

The solicitor general assured the court that the committee members would have no relationship with the government and would file their report with the Supreme Court.

The Committee’s report will have to withstand judicial scrutiny by the Supreme Court. I am not opposed to an investigation. The government takes allegations of privacy violations seriously. It has to be examined, it has to be. It is the government’s feeling that such a question cannot be the subject of an affidavit. It must be reviewed by a committee. It is about national security, argued Mr. Mehta.

He said the government could not afford to sensationalize such an important issue. He opposed the petitioners’ claims that the government was denying protection to its own citizens or attacking democracy.

Justice Kant had put things in perspective by observing that while the court was also concerned about national security, it could not turn a deaf ear to the privacy concerns raised by citizens.

[ad_2]