Israeli ‘Pegasus’ spyware controversy: Opposition knocks at Indian SC against illegal snooping by govt

ISLAMABAD: A controversy, triggered after acquiring Israeli ‘Pegasus’ spyware by India, has knocked Indian Supreme Court again, while the opposition has taken the plea that Modi’s government indulged into illegal snooping that amounted to ‘treason’.

India bought a spyware as part of the so-called defence deal with Israel in 2017 that cost India $2 billion, and now it has triggered a major controversy with the opposition that blamed Modi’s government indulged into illegal snooping of them.

The petitioner has contended that the deal was not approved by the Parliament and therefore, needed to be declared null and void and the paid money should be recovered.

A fresh plea was filed in the Indian Supreme Court on the alleged use of Israeli spyware ‘Pegasus’, seeking that the court to take cognizance of the New York Times’ report on the issue and order a probe into the entire 2017-defence deal with Israel.

The top court has been urged to issue suitable directions for registering a criminal case and to investigate the impugned ‘Pegasus’ spyware purchase deal and alleged misuse of public funds in the interest of justice.

The media report said the ‘Pegasus’ and a missile system were the ‘centre-pieces' of a roughly $2 billion deal of sophisticated weapons and intelligence gear between India and Israel in 2017. The NYT, in its report titled 'The Battle for the World's Most Powerful Cyber-weapon', identified the Israeli firm NSO Group. On October 27, last year, the top Indian court had appointed a 3-member panel of cyber experts to probe the alleged use of ‘Pegasus’ for surveillance of certain individuals in the country, saying that the state could not be given a ‘free pass’ every time under the specter of national security and it could not be the ‘bugbear’ that the judiciary shied away from. In one of the significant verdicts in recent times over the issue of citizen’s right to privacy, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana, had observed that mere invocation of national security by the state could not render the judiciary a ‘mute spectator’ and asserted that indiscriminate spying on individuals in a democratic country could no way be allowed.

The apex court said Justice Raveendran would oversee the functioning of the three-member panel of cyber security, digital forensics, networks and hardware. The Indian court further remarked that it is appointing the committee in view of the six compelling circumstances; Right to privacy and freedom of speech are alleged to be impacted, which needed to be examined; the entire citizenry is affected by such allegations due to the potential chilling effect, no clear stand was taken by the central government and the seriousness accorded to the allegations by foreign countries and involvement of the foreign parties.