SC Verdict

The Supreme Court’s move on Wednesday in the Pegasus case to appoint an expert committee, whose functioning will be overseen by a retired apex court judge, is a welcome and an emphatic reassertion of its role and responsibilities as the custodian of individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. The three-judge bench, headed by CJI N V Ramana, called the “limited affidavit” submitted by the Union government in the Court in response to the petitions that alleged use of a spyware for surveillance on private citizens as an “omnibus and vague denial” and rejected the government’s plea to let it constitute an expert panel to investigate the issue. The SC order broadly addresses three issues that have
been flagged in the Pegasus row. The Court, pointing to its own judgment in K S Puttaswamy, has said that “right to privacy is as sacrosanct as human existence and is inalienable to human dignity and autonomy”. While agreeing that it is not an absolute right, the Court has said any restrictions “must necessarily pass constitutional scrutiny”. Any surveillance or snooping done on an individual by the state or any outside agency is an infringement of that person’s right to privacy. Hence, any violation of that right by the state, even in national interest, has to follow procedures established by the law. The Court has also drawn a link between surveillance, especially “the knowledge that one is under the threat of being spied on”, and censorship, particularly selfcensorship, to reflect on the “potential chilling effect that snooping techniques may have”. The Court has ruled that the state does not get a “free pass every time the
spectre of ‘national security’ is raised”. This also means “no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial
review” if the matter impinges on national security: In effect, the government will have to explain the Court why
it wants to avoid disclosure.

The Court has constituted a panel of experts under former SC judge Justice R V Raveendran. It has sharply defined the questions it needs to ask and find answers to: Was any Pegasus suite of spyware acquired by the central or any state government or any central or state agency for use against the citizens of India? If any government agency has used it to snoop on Indian citizens, under what law, rule, guidelines, protocol or lawful procedure was such deployment made? These are vital questions at the heart of a citizen’s basic rights. The letter and spirit of the court’s order will be tested by
how the Justice Raveendran panel addresses them.