Pegasus Spyware Probe | Day 8: Alleged victims of Pegasus demand opening of sealed cover report
Pegasus Spyware ProbeJudges: Surya Kant J, N.K. Singh J
Today, a Division Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh briefly heard petitions to the Union’s alleged use of the NSO Groups’s Pegasus Spyware to spy on citizens. This hearing comes nearly three years after a Supreme Court-appointed Technical Committee submitted its report. The committee had looked into allegations of the use of spyware on Indian journalists, leaders of the Opposition, activists and judges. It was set up after applications poured in at the top court seeking an independent probe, emphasising that the spyware violated the right to privacy.
In August 2022, parts of the report were read in open Court by a Bench led by former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana. The report claimed that five out of 29 devices assessed by the committee had suspicious malware. However, the report did not confirm whether this malware was Pegasus. The report was then preserved in a sealed envelope. Justice Kant was also a part of that Bench.
Today, the Bench heard Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a senior journalist who alleged that his phone contained the spyware. Thakurta was among 13 alleged victims and experts who had appeared before the technical committee and submitted a deposition. (The Supreme Court Observer published summaries of all the 13 depositions here.)
Sibal submitted that a judgement of a United States District Court had declared NSO Group, the Israeli Technology Group, guilty for unauthorised surveillance of 1400 WhatsApp users through Pegasus.
Petitioners: Sealed report can confirm which devices were infected
Sibal submitted that the US Court judgement had observed that India was one of the countries where WhatsApp users were targeted with the Pegasus spyware. The list also consisted of Mexico, Bahrain, Israel and Registan. Redacted portions of the technical committee’s report, he suggested, can be revealed to the concerned persons.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed strong reservations against disclosing the contents of the report, arguing that the sovereignty of the nation was at stake.
Justice Kant suggested an alternative: Individuals could approach the Court to find out if the spyware was found in their devices. The Court would respond with a “yes or no answer”. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, also for the petitioners, pushed for the release of the complete report. He submitted that the use of the spyware against the citizens had been confirmed. “It is an open Court system here,” he said.
Justice Kant stated that it has been “very clear” that any report concerning the security of the nation cannot be publicly disclosed. He suggested that affected individuals can approach the Court separately.
As a parting observation, Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi submitted that the fundamental question was whether the spyware was used by the Union government or not. “If they have [used it before]…there is nothing preventing them from using it today,” he stated.
Justice Kant responded that there is nothing wrong with using the spyware—concerns arise based on who it has been used against. Mehta added: “terrorists cannot have a privacy right.”
The case will be heard next on 30 July 2025.