Friday, 06 August 2021 | PNS | New Delhi
Somebody from Govt must respond on next hearing, says apex court
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the petitioners in the Pegasus case to serve copies of their pleas to the Centre “so that somebody from the Government is present” on next hearing August 10 to respond.
“Let them serve copies of the petition to the Government. Somebody should appear for the Government to take notice,” said the bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, while asking series of questions to petitioners and observing the seriousness of the matter.
“Let the matters be listed on Tuesday, the August 10, 2021. In the meantime, Advocate-on-Record appearing for the petitioners are directed to serve copies of the writ petitions upon the Union of India well in advance,” the bench said in its order.
During the argument, the petitioners pointed out that Pegasus spyware cannot be used unless it is purchased by the Government or its agencies and the Centre has to answer why they have not taken any action or lodged FIR in the matter of alleged snooping.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant was told by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for veteran journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar, that it is a matter of privacy and dignity and the Government should answer why they have “kept quiet”.
“The fact is that this technology cannot be used in India unless you have purchased it. This cannot happen. And who can purchase it is only the Government and Government agencies,” he said.
“We cannot give your lordships all the answers because we do not have all the answers. We cannot have access to these things. Therefore, it is imperative that the Government comes and tell your lordships what the state of affairs is and why they have not taken action,” said Sibal. He told the bench, which was hearing a batch of petitions seeking independent probe into the alleged Pegasus snooping issue, that it is not just an internal matter but a matter concerning our national security as well.
When Sibal referred to a recent report about old number of a former member of judiciary also being there in the list, the bench said, “Truth has to come out, we don’t know whose names are there.”
Sibal said that there are questions that will have to be answered by the Government. When the bench asked why the issue has cropped up now when the matter came into light in 2019 itself, Sibal said they came to know about it after reports were recently published. He also said that the extent of surveillance was not known to them. Sibal said NSO, on its website, states its products are used by the Governments to tackle terror activities.
“Does it mean that the Government is treating journalists, academicians, activists as terrorists because only the Government can purchase such products,” Sibal said, adding he has been told that it cost around 52,000 USD to penetrate into a mobile phone. Answering the court’s query as to why the petitioners have not lodged FIRs if their phones were hacked, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing in the matter, said they do not know under which provision they can lodge a complaint.
Datar said as per new rules under the IT Act, complaint can be lodged for sending obscene messages on particular devices and there is no express provision under which case can be lodged for snooping.
