Pegasus Snoopgate: Supreme Court Asks Petitioners To Serve Copy Of Plea To Centre

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard nine petitions on the Pegasus Snoopgate controversy. Pegasus is spyware developed by the Israeli cyberarms firm NSO Group that can be covertly installed on mobile phones (and other devices).  

The nine petitions were of Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, Director of Hindu Group of publications N Ram and founder of Asianet Sashi Kumar, Editors Guild of India, Jagdeep S Chhokar, Narendra Mishra, Journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh and Ipsa Shatakshi, Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Journalist SNM Abidi and Prem Shankar Jha. The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant heard the petitions.  

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for N Ram and Sashi Kumar said that Pegasus is a rogue technology that infiltrates the lives of the people without their knowledge. He further explained that it just requires a phone to enter into the lives of the people striking privacy, human dignity and the value of our human republic.  

To this, CJI NV Ramana commented that the allegations are serious still people did not make efforts to file a criminal complaint. Also, he read somewhere that the software is sold only to the governments.  

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal then mentioned the order of the California Court. The order reads, once activated it connects the target device with the Defendants malware which would then enable and transfer the data. At the Pegasus case hearing in the California court, it was held that “it’s done at the behest of the government”. 

Justice Surya Kant asked, “what happened in California? The country had claimed sovereignty immunity”. 

The immunity application was rejected by the court, Senior Advocate Sibal replied.  

Senior Advocate Sibal mentions that the question is have you bought the software? How much was spent? Where was this hardware placed? Furthermore, he mentioned a Minister’s statement which said, “yes the spyware was developed by Israel group and that it included 122 users from India”. As this concerns India’s privacy, why did the centre not lodge an FIR if the Centre said this is happening.  

Can be the State government also, CJI Ramana proposed.  

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal responded by saying, “Govt of India needs to answer on that front. It is not an internal matter. We cannot give all answers as we don't have access and the only government has. They have to state why they did not take any action”.  

Why suddenly has this issue cropped after two years? CJI Ramana asked 

“We only got to know from Washington Post report and other media agencies. The extent of which was not known to us. How do we file this petition?” Senior Advocate Sibal replied. He also stated that even registrars of their courts have their name in the snooping list, “we found this today morning”.  

CJI NV Ramana says, the only question is why wasn’t an FIR lodged when you knew the phone is hacked?  

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for Jagdeep Chhokar said that the phone was hacked which was a personal infringement. And the FIR was not filed as “this case requires an independent probe by a fact-finding committee. It has to be a highest- level bureaucrat who replies to this preferably the cabinet secretary”. 

Pointing to a list of 155 names, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said he appears for one such individual. “The Wire confirmed that at least 40 journalists who were targets or potential targets, seven phones were forensically examined and 5 showed confirmation that they were infected. SNM Abidi and Prem Shankar Jha were also there”, Senior Advocate Dwivedi remarked. He also added, “I understand tapping phones of terrorists etc but ordinary people phones cannot be compromised. This is an issue that involves constitutionality and not only criminality”.  

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said, “Privacy is about the privacy of one's bodily area”. Thus, there are no provisions for an FIR to be lodged. “Now 9 judge bench stated privacy permeates all through part III of the Constitution. Today, 300 people have come to light, who else will take cognizance of this apart from the judiciary. We don't know it's 300 or 3000 individuals. This can be taken up as a class action case”, Senior Advocate Datar added.  

Advocate ML Sharma then states, “Now Facebook and Whatsapp had signed a consent statement. There are apprehensions on what was said before the USA court. Once you enter the computer you get the password and everything else. This is very important and any document can be planted. Declaration by NSO very important”.  

Subsequently, CJI Ramana asked if anybody has served a copy to the Centre.  

“We have given it to the Solicitor and Attorney General”, Senior Advocate Divan responded.  

CJI Ramana after hearing the matter asked all the parties to serve their petitions to the Centre. No notice is issued and the next hearing of the matter is slated for 10th August as without the presence of the Central government in the hearing, the bench cannot proceed as of now, clarifies CJI.