The Supreme Court, while refusing to make public any report related to the security and sovereignty of the country, asked what is wrong in using ‘spyware against terrorists’? The top court was hearing petitions related to the alleged unauthorised use of Pegasus spyware. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotishwar Singh indicated that they can consider individual concerns of privacy violation but also said that the report of the technical committee is not a document that can be discussed ‘on the streets’.
The bench said, “No report related to the security and sovereignty of the country will be touched but the persons who want to know whether they are involved in it or not can be informed. Individual concerns should be addressed but it cannot be made a document for discussion on the streets.’
The Supreme Court said that it will also have to review to what extent the report of the technical panel can be shared with individuals. The Supreme Court said, ‘If the country is using spyware against terrorists, what is wrong in it? Having spyware is not wrong, the question is against whom are you using it. You cannot compromise on the security of the country. The common citizen who has the right to privacy will be given protection under the Constitution.’ The next hearing of the case will be on July 30.
How right is the Supreme Court’s stand?
The Supreme Court’s statement comes from the perspective of national security, where governments need to use modern technologies, such as spyware, to prevent terrorism and anti-national activities. The court also said that the issue is not the presence of spyware, but how and against whom it is being used. The court’s statement seems very general. The need for monitoring and transparency in the use of spyware was not emphasized enough. If the government misuses such tools, it could jeopardize the privacy and freedom of speech of citizens.
Is Pegasus being used against government opponents and journalists?
The controversy over the use of Pegasus spyware, which is made by Israel’s NSO Group, began in 2021. According to an investigation by ‘The Wire’ and international media groups, the phone numbers of more than 300 people in India were on Pegasus’s potential surveillance list, including journalists, opposition leaders, lawyers, and social activists. The investigation claimed that the government did not limit its use of Pegasus to terrorists or criminals, but also used it against those critical of the government, such as journalists and opposition leaders. For example, a report by The Wire confirmed the presence of Pegasus in the phones of some journalists. The central government has categorically denied these allegations and said that all the surveillance is done legally. However, the government has not confirmed or denied the use of Pegasus, which has further increased suspicion.
Even after the investigation, it is not clear whether the government directly targeted journalists or opponents. NSO Group says that Pegasus is sold only to government agencies, but the responsibility of who is targeted lies with the governments.
Why is the Supreme Court silent?
On the issue of the Supreme Court’s silence, it is important to understand that the court had taken steps in the Pegasus case earlier as well. Action in 2021: When the Pegasus controversy came to light, the Supreme Court had constituted an independent inquiry committee, headed by retired Justice R.V. Raveendran. The committee was tasked with investigating the use of Pegasus and investigating allegations of violation of the right to privacy. In 2022, the committee submitted its report to the Supreme Court, but its details were not made public. The court also issued notices to the government in the matter, but no clear decision or sentence was issued.
On 29 April 2025, the court adjourned the hearing to 30 July 2025. Meanwhile, the court’s statement seems to give more priority to the security aspect, which makes some people feel that the issue of privacy of journalists and opponents is being ignored. The Supreme Court follows legal procedures, which require time. The court may be avoiding a clear decision due to the investigation process and lack of evidence. Issues like Pegasus are related to national security, due to which the court may avoid directly questioning the government’s policies. The publicly available evidence is based only on potential surveillance lists and a few phone checks, which may not be enough to prove the government’s direct position. The Supreme Court’s position may be reasonable in the light of national security, but clear rules and transparency are needed to protect the rights to privacy and freedom. An independent body is needed to oversee the use of tools like Pegasus, which can prevent government misuse.
Impartial sources believe that the Supreme Court should issue clear guidelines to strike a balance between security and privacy. If evidence is lacking, the court should force the government to public accountability. The government should give a clear answer about the use of Pegasus, especially when there are allegations of surveillance of journalists and opponents. Transparency can win public trust. Public awareness and media independence are important in highlighting such issues. NagarWhy should people be aware of their rights? The centralist side is right to a certain extent, but it should also take the issue of privacy seriously. The allegations regarding the use of Pegasus are serious, and a clear decision is expected in the Supreme Court’s re-hearing (30 July 2025). The silence or slow process of the court may be due to legal limitations or lack of evidence, but it affects public trust. Therefore, a clear legal framework and accountability are essential to balance security and rights.
