Pegasus: The Centre must shed ambiguity

The Centre has adopted an opaque approach to the Pegasus revelations. In Parliament, the new information technology minister Ashwini Vaishnaw’s defence rested on the fact that there has been no illegal interception. The ministry of defence said it had not procured any such software, but this left open the question whether other government departments and agencies had done so. Another ministry cried off a question claiming the matter was sub judice. And with the Centre avoiding a discussion as demanded by the Opposition, the monsoon session was disrupted.

In the Supreme Court, which is hearing a bunch of petitions on the matter, the Centre denied the allegations in the petitions. It also offered to set up a committee of experts to go into all aspects of the issue. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta used the national security argument, pleading that any public disclosure on whether or not the software was used would harm security, help terrorists, and said that the government was willing to divulge details to a committee. The court has issued a notice to the Centre and will take up the matter again in 10 days.

The Centre is tying itself up in knots to evade the central question in this case: Did the Government of India procure Pegasus, and did it authorise its use? To suggest that disclosing this will help terrorists isn’t a smart argument, for they probably already operate based on the assumption that the Indian State has this technology. The State owes an explanation to citizens on whether there has been hacking and an invasion of privacy. The government must shed its ambiguity even if the answer is an uncomfortable one.