While terrorists cannot claim breach of privacy when such spyware is used against them, civil individuals are protected under the constitution against such invasion, Justice Kant highlighted
Supreme Court ruled that there is no problem if the government has spyware and uses the same for the nation’s security, but the concern lies in against whom it is used. The two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N K Singh on Tuesday said one can’t compromise with the security of the nation, the Indian Express reported.
“What’s wrong if the country is using that spyware against (terrorists)...To have spyware is not wrong. Against whom it is used is...that is the point. It’s not that simple. You can’t compromise or sacrifice the security of the nation,” said Justice Kant, according to IE.
The matter is now scheduled for its next hearing on July 30.
The case dates to 2021 in the backdrop of allegations that the Israel-made spyware was being used by the Indian government for surveillance of journalists, activists and politicians.
While terrorists cannot claim breach of privacy when such spyware is used against them, civil individuals are protected under the constitution against such invasion, Justice Kant highlighted.
“A private civilian has a privacy right and protection under the Constitution. Their complaint with regard to that can always be looked into,” said Justice Kant.
Following the plea submitted against its use in 2021, the apex court had set up a three-member technical committee headed by former SC judge Justice R V Raveendran to investigate the allegations that Pegasus was being used for surveillance. In its report, the committee mentioned that it found no substantial proof of the use of the Israel-made spyware in the phones assessed by it.
In July 2021, an investigative report by a near-journalistic type of global grouping revealed that Pegasus, a spyware developed by the Israeli cybersecurity company NSO Group, may have been used to target the mobiles phone of select individuals, including few Indian journalists and politicians.
The report sparked an uproar, following which the committee was formulated by the Supreme Court.