The court said that this report cannot be turned into a public debate topic.
New Delhi, April 29 — The Supreme Court of India has made it clear that it will not release any part of the Pegasus spyware report that affects the security and sovereignty of the country. However, the court also mentioned that it may consider informing individuals if they were personally affected or targeted.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh gave this statement during a hearing on Tuesday.
The bench said, “Any report which touches the security and sovereignty of the country will not be touched. But individuals who want to know whether they are included, that can be informed. Yes, individual apprehension must be addressed but it cannot be made a document for discussion on the streets.”
The Supreme Court was referring to the report submitted by a technical committee that investigated the alleged use of the Pegasus spyware in India. The court stressed that this report cannot be turned into a public debate topic. It added that the court will decide how much of the report can be shared with individuals without risking national interests.
“Any report which touches the security and sovereignty of the country will not be touched,” the bench said firmly.
At the same time, the court showed concern for individuals who believe their phones may have been hacked, saying their personal concerns must be addressed.
“But individuals who want to know whether they are included, that can be informed. Yes, individual apprehension must be addressed but it cannot be made a document for discussion on the streets,” the court reiterated.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, referred to an American court ruling in the matter.
He said, “WhatsApp itself has disclosed here. Not a third party. WhatsApp has said about the hacking.”
This statement referred to WhatsApp admitting that the spyware was used for surveillance in some cases.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the full technical committee report should be made publicly available.
The petitioners also referred to a US district court judgment which found Israeli company NSO Group—the maker of Pegasus—liable for targeting around 1,400 devices.
In response, the Supreme Court bench said, “Show us the US district court judgment. Yes, individual apprehension must be addressed, but it cannot be made a document for discussion on the streets.”
Justice Kant also added a note of caution by saying, “The kind of situation we are facing now, we have to be careful,” possibly referring to the recent Pahalgam tragedy, which claimed 26 lives.
The bench, which also included Justice N Kotiswar Singh, stressed that national security must not be compromised while addressing privacy concerns.
The court remarked, “What is wrong if the country is using spyware? Let us be clear, no issue in having spyware. It can be used against some… Let us not compromise the security of the nation. Yes, using against whom is the question? Of course, if it is used against a civil society person, of course, that will be looked at.”
The petitioners have been demanding that the report by the Supreme Court-appointed technical committee—tasked with probing the alleged surveillance through Pegasus—be made fully public. They claim this is important to ensure transparency and accountability.
However, the government has maintained its stance that the use of surveillance tools like Pegasus is justified in certain cases. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, questioned the objections to its use against national threats.
He stated, “Terrorists have no right to privacy.”
ALSO READ: Pegasus Spyware Case || “We Will Take It Up in April”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has now scheduled the next hearing for July 30, when it will further decide how to handle the information in the technical panel’s report.
Previous Hearing
The Supreme Court of India today decided to hear next week a group of petitions related to the alleged misuse of Pegasus spyware for spying on journalists and other people.
In 2021, the Supreme Court had ordered a detailed investigation into the claims that Indian government agencies were using the Pegasus spyware to monitor politicians, journalists, and activists. For this, the court had set up a technical committee and a supervisory committee.
The supervisory committee gave a “lengthy” report in three parts. One part of the report advised that laws should be changed to better protect people’s right to privacy and also to strengthen the country’s cyber security.
The technical panel included three cyber experts who had deep knowledge in the fields of digital forensics, cyber security, networks, and hardware. The Supreme Court asked this panel to “inquire, investigate and determine” whether Pegasus spyware was used to spy on Indian citizens. Justice Raveendran was put in charge of monitoring their investigation.
The members of this technical panel were Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Prabaharan P, and Ashwin Anil Gumaste. Justice Raveendran was supported in the monitoring task by former IPS officer Alok Joshi and cyber security expert Sundeep Oberoi.
According to the Supreme Court’s order, the probe team was given the power to look into what actions the Central government had taken after the media reported in 2019 that Indian citizens’ WhatsApp accounts were being hacked using Pegasus spyware.
The court also asked the panel to find out whether the Pegasus software was ever bought by the central government, any state government, or their agencies, and whether it was used against Indian citizens.
Earlier, an international media group had revealed that more than 300 Indian mobile numbers were found on a list of possible targets for spying through Pegasus software.
This matter first came into light after an international media group reported that over 300 verified Indian mobile numbers were listed as possible targets for surveillance using Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli company NSO Group. The spyware was allegedly used to monitor journalists, politicians, activists, and others in India.
The Supreme Court had earlier appointed an independent technical committee to probe these claims and submit its findings. Now, the main issue before the court is how to balance individual privacy rights with the need to protect national security.
CASE TITLE: MANOHAR LAL SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.| W.P.(Crl.) No. 314/2021
