Centre seeks time to ile 2nd affidavit in SC
Icitor general hta requests for re time to file ther affidavit, says ld not consult the cerned officers
The Union governt on Tuesday signalled a ink of its previous stand nst filing a detailed response e Supreme Court on a clutch titions demanding a courtitored probe into the alleged eillance of Indian citizens g Pegasus spyware. This e on a day the apex court expected to pass orders on onstitution of a committee other ancillary issues related
independent inquiry. n August 17, the Centre told op court that it has nothing d to its three-page affidavit e Pegasus snooping matter h neither confirmed nor ed the use of the military e spyware to hack phones of sters, politicians, business, activists and journalists. owing this, the bench, ed by Chief Justice of India amana, said it would conpassing some orders on titution of expert committee e next date of hearing. t on Monday, solicitor gentushar Mehta told the h, which also included justiurya Kant and AS Bopanna, the government is yet to a final call on filing the second affidavit, as suggested by the court earlier. When the matter was taken up, Mehta, representing the Union government, submitted that there is some difficulty in a decision on the additional affidavit since he could not consult the officers concerned. “There is some difficulty regarding a call on filing the second affidavit. Please, consider accommodating me till Thursday or Monday”, the S-G requested the bench.
To this, the CJI said: “But you have already filed an affidavit.”
Mehta replied: “Yes, my lords. We filed one affidavit and this court had enquired if we wanted to file another one. I could not ensure that stand. For some reason, some officers were not there; then I could not meet, etc. It (the stand) could not be found.” The SG requested adjourning the matter till Thursday or till next Monday .
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in the petition filed by journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar, said that there was no objection if the government is reconsidering previous stand on filing comprehensive affidavit.
Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to September 13.
The Pegasus row erupted on July 18 after an international investigative consortium reported that the phones of Indian ministers, politicians, activists, businessmen and journalists were among the 50,000 that were potentially targeted by Pegasus, Israeli company NSO Group’s phone hacking software. According to this consortium, Pegasus can switch on a target’s phone camera and microphone, as well as access data on the device, effectively turning a phone into a pocket spy. Responding to a bunch of petitions filed by lawyers, politicians, journalists and civil rights activists, the Union ministry of electronics and information technology filed the three-page affidavit on August 16 that refused to confirm or deny whether it used the Israeli Pegasus spyware for surveilling Indians. The Centre instead offered to set up an expert committee to look into controversy and “dispel any wrong narrative spread by certain vested interests”.
The bench tried to know whether the government would come clean on the purchase or use of Pegasus but the S-G consistently maintained that a committee should rather be allowed to delve into the issue.
The case was adjourned by a day on August 16 to enable the government to decide on filing a comprehensive reply.
On August 17, the court observed that it is “not averse” to setting up an expert committee to look into the alleged surveillance of Indian citizens with Pegasus spyware but expects the government to bring sufficient facts on record regarding the interception regime in India.
The government, however, replied that any disclosure on its using or not using Pegasus spyware would come at the cost of national security and insisted that it will divulge such information only before the proposed committee, which, it said, can report to the top court.
It also added that all interceptions were being done in accordance with the statutory procedure, and it would not wish to put out in the public domain details of the software used for lawful surveillance by filing any additional affidavit.
Following the Centre’s refusal, the court on August 17 issued a formal notice to the government on the batch of pleas filed by petitioners in the case, a list that includes advocate ML Sharma, former minister Yashwant Sinha, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, the Editors Guild of India, journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar, journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Rupesh Kumar Singh, Ipshita Shatakshi, SNM Abdi, and Prem Shankar Jha, and civil rights activists Jagdeep S Chhokar and Narendra Mishra.
Deferring the matter for August 17, the bench once again asked S-G Mehta to consider filing a detailed reply while observing that the court would ponder over the future course of action in the meantime.