New Delhi [India], April 29 (HBTV): The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that while possessing spyware for national security purposes is not inherently wrong, its misuse against civil society individuals would warrant judicial scrutiny.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh stated: ‘What’s wrong if a country is using spyware? To have spyware is not wrong; it is against whom you are using it that is the question. You can’t sacrifice the security of the nation.’

The remarks came as senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, appearing for some petitioners, argued that the central issue in the case was whether the government possessed and deployed Pegasus spyware.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted: ‘Terrorists cannot claim privacy rights.’

In response, the bench emphasised: ‘A civil individual who has the right to privacy will be protected under the Constitution.’

The court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking an inquiry into allegations that the Indian government used Israeli spyware Pegasus to surveil journalists, judges, activists, politicians, and others.

The matter was adjourned till July 30, 2025, to allow petitioners to submit a judgment delivered by a United States court in a case filed by WhatsApp against Pegasus.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, informed the bench about a finding by a US District Court which concluded that India was among the countries where hacking had occurred. He urged the bench to direct the release of the Justice Raveendran Committee report to affected individuals, with sensitive portions redacted.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing another petitioner, contended that the report should be disclosed in full, without redaction, citing the principle of open court.

The bench clarified that any report affecting national security and sovereignty would not be made public, though affected individuals could be informed. It remarked: ‘Yes, individual apprehension must be addressed but it cannot be made a document for discussion on the streets.’

The Supreme Court had earlier constituted a technical and overseeing committee to examine the alleged use of Pegasus spyware. The oversight panel was headed by retired Justice R V Raveendran and assisted by Alok Joshi, a former IPS officer, and Dr Sundeep Oberoi, Chair of a subcommittee within the International Organisation of Standardisation/International Electro-Technical Commission/Joint Technical Committee.

The technical committee comprised:

• Dr Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat;

• Dr Prabaharan P, Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala;

• Dr Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra.

The committee's report stated that no conclusive proof of Pegasus spyware was found in the 29 mobile phones examined, although malware was detected in five devices. The committee further noted that the Government of India did not cooperate with its investigation.

It also highlighted that the reports contained information about malware, publicly available research, and data extracted from private mobile phones, some of which may be confidential.

The apex court reiterated that ‘indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed’ in a democratic country governed by the rule of law. It underscored that the right to privacy, as upheld under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution in the KS Puttaswamy judgment, must be protected.

Multiple petitions were filed by senior journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas of the CPI(M), advocate ML Sharma, former Union minister Yashwant Sinha, and RSS ideologue KN Govindacharya.

Other petitioners included journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, SNM Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh, and Ipsa Shatakshi—reportedly on the potential Pegasus target list—along with The Editors Guild of India.

The petitioners demanded a court-monitored probe led by a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge into the alleged surveillance.

(ANI)