How not to deal with a global spyware scandal
It is for Parliament to decide how to treat the Thursday press conference in New Delhi of minister of state for external affairs Meenakshi Lekhi in which she all but threatened media with “defamation”, and accused it of “forgery”. The charge flew from their work as they carried news and articles on the subject of the Pegasus spyware, created by an Israeli company, which — as the implication goes — was misused by the government or its agencies to infiltrate the mobile phones of leading figures in the country, including journalists, senior Opposition leaders, cabinet ministers, a Supreme Court judge, a former Election Commissioner, besides well-known personalities from science, industry and business.
The subject is a hot potato. It has rocked the country for many days, and has created waves around the world. In India, it has paralysed Parliament where Opposition parties have demanded a credible enquiry, or the setting up of a Joint Parliamentary Committee, to get to the bottom of the sensitive issue. When Parliament is in session, convention requires that ministers speak on matters of public significance only in the House, not from any forum outside it.
There is a reason for this. When ministers speak on the floor of Parliament, they are required to assume the fullest responsibility for their statements and observations, lest they fall foul of parliamentary privileges. Ministers are not meant to make loose, careless, or partisan remarks which, in India, has increasingly become the stock-intrade of politicians trying to grab public attention.
It is a moot point if Ms Lekhi will care to repeat her assertions from the floor of the House, and whether she will get away with it if she does. But the point to note is that she does open herself to questioning by Parliament for making public pronouncements at a press conference when the Parliament is in session. If the minister of state is representing the government’s stand in saying that those who write or speak about the Pegasus spyware bring upon their heads the charge of defamation and forgery, then it is for MPs to decide if this is a tenable view.
On the face of it, the minister’s position is balderdash. Look no further than the acknowledgment of the NSO group, the creators of Pegasus, in an internal policy document, that the “customers for Pegasus are states and state agencies” that may be “tempted to limit fundamental freedoms”. This observation is from a fortnight before the news of the misuse of Pegasus to target perfectly law-abiding individuals hit the stands internationally, and could well have come from the Opposition in India.
According to NSO, the spyware is intended to be used to check terrorism and serious crime, not to sneak on individuals who go about their daily business. It appears that in India, the names of individuals that have come up so far is weighted in favour of government critics and also those whose actions the government may like to watch even if they profess loyalty and friendship. In short, the use of the spyware has turned out to be a cesspool into which Ms Lekhi has needlessly permitted herself to stray.
While the government has strongly refuted suggestions of wrongdoing or acting in illegal fashion, it is worth noting that the French government has ordered an inquiry since the media group that broke the story — Forbidden Stories — is French. This is how democratic governments are expected to behave instead of ducking behind a wall of procedures and parliamentary numbers, and neither confirming nor denying in outright terms.
While the government has strongly refuted suggestions of wrongdoing or acting in illegal fashion, it is worth noting that the French government has ordered an inquiry