Pegasus row SC declines Centres plea to allow it to appoint expert committee to probe allegations
New Delhi Oct 27 PTI Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday while declining the Centres plea to allow it to appoint an expert committee to probe the allegations of use of spyware Pegasus for surveillance of certain people in IndiaSuch a course of action would violate the settled judicial principle against bias the apex court saidWhile appointing a three-member expert panel to investigate the matter the top court noted seven compelling circumstances including the allegations that the Centre or the state governments are party to the purported deprivation of rights of the citizens that weighed with the court to pass the orderA bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said one of the compelling circumstances was that right to privacy and freedom of speech of the citizens are alleged to be impacted which needs to be examinedIt is for reason vi above that we decline the Respondent-Union of Indias plea to allow them to appoint an expert committee for the purposes of investigating the allegations as such a course of action would violate the settled judicial principle against bias ie that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done said the bench which also comprised Justices Surya Kant and Hima KohliThe top court passed a 46-page order on a batch of pleas seeking independent probe into the alleged Pegasus snooping matterThe compelling circumstances noted as vi in the order reads allegations that the Union or state governments are party to the rights deprivations of the citizensThe top court said the other compelling circumstances that have weighed with it to pass such an order are — the entire citizenry is affected by such allegations due to the potential chilling effect no clear stand taken by the Centre regarding actions taken by it seriousness accorded to the allegations by foreign countries and involvement of foreign parties possibility that some foreign authority agency or private entity is involved in placing citizens of India under surveillanceLimitation under writ jurisdiction to delve into factual aspects For instance even the question of usage of the technology on citizens which is the jurisdictional fact is disputed and requires further factual examination it notedThe bench said the petitioners in the matter have placed on record certain material that prima facie merits consideration by the court and there has been no specific denial of any of the facts averred by them by the CentreThere has only been an omnibus and vague denial in the limited affidavit filed by the respondent Union of India which cannot be sufficient In such circumstances we have no option but to accept the prima facie case made out by the petitioners to examine the allegations made it saidIt said that during the arguments one of the petitioners had sought an interim order directing the Cabinet Secretary to put certain facts on an affidavitThe bench said in the circumstances of the case when the Centre has already been given multiple opportunities to file an affidavit on record and looking to the conduct of the Union of India in not placing on record any facts through their reliance on the national security defense no useful purpose would be served by issuing directions of the nature sought by the petitioner apart from causing a further delay in the proceedingsIt said different forms of surveillance and data gathering by intelligence agencies to fight terrorism crime and corruption in the national interest andor for national security are accepted norms all over the worldThe bench noted that the petitioners do not contend that the state should not resort to surveillance or collection of data in matters of national security and their complaint is about the misuse or likely misuse of the spyware in violation of the right to privacy of citizensThe respondent-Union of India also does not contend that its agencies can resort to surveillance collection of data relating to its citizens where national security and national interest are not involved The apprehension of the respondent-Union of India is that any inquiry in this behalf should not jeopardize national security and the steps taken by it to protect national security it saidThere is thus a broad consensus that unauthorized surveillanceaccessing of stored data from the phones and other devices of citizens for reasons other than nations security would be illegal objectionable and a matter of concern the top court saidThe pleas seeking independent probe are related to reports of alleged snooping by government agencies on eminent citizens politicians and scribes by using Israeli firm NSOs spyware PegasusAn international media consortium had reported that over 300 verified Indian mobile phone numbers were on the list of potential targets for surveillance using Pegasus spyware PTI ABA PKS SJK SA
New Delhi Oct 27 PTI Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday while declining the Centres plea to allow it to appoint an expert committee to probe the allegations of use of spyware Pegasus for surveillance of certain people in IndiaSuch a course of action would violate the settled judicial principle against bias the apex court saidWhile appointing a three-member expert panel to investigate the matter the top court noted seven compelling circumstances including the allegations that the Centre or the state governments are party to the purported deprivation of rights of the citizens that weighed with the court to pass the orderA bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said one of the compelling circumstances was that right to privacy and freedom of speech of the citizens are alleged to be impacted which needs to be examinedIt is for reason vi above that we decline the Respondent-Union of Indias plea to allow them to appoint an expert committee for the purposes of investigating the allegations as such a course of action would violate the settled judicial principle against bias ie that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done said the bench which also comprised Justices Surya Kant and Hima KohliThe top court passed a 46-page order on a batch of pleas seeking independent probe into the alleged Pegasus snooping matterThe compelling circumstances noted as vi in the order reads allegations that the Union or state governments are party to the rights deprivations of the citizensThe top court said the other compelling circumstances that have weighed with it to pass such an order are — the entire citizenry is affected by such allegations due to the potential chilling effect no clear stand taken by the Centre regarding actions taken by it seriousness accorded to the allegations by foreign countries and involvement of foreign parties possibility that some foreign authority agency or private entity is involved in placing citizens of India under surveillanceLimitation under writ jurisdiction to delve into factual aspects For instance even the question of usage of the technology on citizens which is the jurisdictional fact is disputed and requires further factual examination it notedThe bench said the petitioners in the matter have placed on record certain material that prima facie merits consideration by the court and there has been no specific denial of any of the facts averred by them by the CentreThere has only been an omnibus and vague denial in the limited affidavit filed by the respondent Union of India which cannot be sufficient In such circumstances we have no option but to accept the prima facie case made out by the petitioners to examine the allegations made it saidIt said that during the arguments one of the petitioners had sought an interim order directing the Cabinet Secretary to put certain facts on an affidavitThe bench said in the circumstances of the case when the Centre has already been given multiple opportunities to file an affidavit on record and looking to the conduct of the Union of India in not placing on record any facts through their reliance on the national security defense no useful purpose would be served by issuing directions of the nature sought by the petitioner apart from causing a further delay in the proceedingsIt said different forms of surveillance and data gathering by intelligence agencies to fight terrorism crime and corruption in the national interest andor for national security are accepted norms all over the worldThe bench noted that the petitioners do not contend that the state should not resort to surveillance or collection of data in matters of national security and their complaint is about the misuse or likely misuse of the spyware in violation of the right to privacy of citizensThe respondent-Union of India also does not contend that its agencies can resort to surveillance collection of data relating to its citizens where national security and national interest are not involved The apprehension of the respondent-Union of India is that any inquiry in this behalf should not jeopardize national security and the steps taken by it to protect national security it saidThere is thus a broad consensus that unauthorized surveillanceaccessing of stored data from the phones and other devices of citizens for reasons other than nations security would be illegal objectionable and a matter of concern the top court saidThe pleas seeking independent probe are related to reports of alleged snooping by government agencies on eminent citizens politicians and scribes by using Israeli firm NSOs spyware PegasusAn international media consortium had reported that over 300 verified Indian mobile phone numbers were on the list of potential targets for surveillance using Pegasus spyware PTI ABA PKS SJK SA
