Govt cites national security, SC issues notice on Pegasus
The Union government told the Supreme Court it’s nothing to feature to its affidavit on the Pegasus snooping matter filed on Monday that neither confirmed nor denied the utilization of the spyware to hack phones of ministers, politicians, businessmen, activists and journalists, following which the bench, headed by judge of India NV Ramana, issued a proper notice thereto on a clutch of petitions demanding a court-monitored independent investigation into the difficulty .
The court observed that it’s “not averse” to the creation of an expert committee to seem into the alleged surveillance of Indian citizens using the Israeli spyware – as suggested by the govt – but that it expected the Union government to bring sufficient facts on record regarding the interception regime in India.
The government, however, maintained that any disclosure on its using or not using Pegasus spyware could affect national security, and reaffirmed its stand of divulging such information only to the proposed committee which, it added, can report back to the highest court.
In line with its response each day ago, the govt said that each one interceptions were being wiped out accordance with the statutory procedure and it might not wish to place call at property right details of software used for lawful surveillance by filing any additional affidavit.
On Monday, the govt filed a three-page affidavit offering to line up an expert committee to seem into all aspects of the controversy and “dispel any wrong narrative spread by certain vested interests”. It further contended that the petitions “are supported conjectures and surmises or on other unsubstantiated media reports or incomplete or uncorroborated material” and, hence, did not figure out any case to invoke writ jurisdiction.
The bench, including justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, asked lawman Tushar Mehta to reconsider filing an in depth reply in 10 days while observing that the court will ponder over the longer term course of action within the meantime.
“We aren’t averse to a fact-finding or investigating committee…We will issue notice then we’ll take a turn whether a committee is to be appointed — whether it’s to be a committee of
