SC stand on Pegasus scandal vindicates Congress, says Rahul Gandhi
With the Supreme Court finally setting up an expert technical committee to probe the ‘Pegasus snoopgate’ scandal, the Congress has launched a fresh broadside against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government, indicating that it would continue to demand a debate on the issue in Parliament when it convenes for the Winter session.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who had led a united Opposition onslaught against the Centre during the last Parliament session on the snooping row, told reporters on Wednesday that the top court had effectively vindicated his stand by ordering a probe into the snooping row.
Gandhi accused the Centre of “attacking India’s national security” and reiterated that the use of Pegasus to spy on Indians could have been authorised only by the Prime Minister or the Union Home Minister.
“During the last Parliament session, we had raised the Pegasus issue because we felt it was an attack on the foundation of our nation, our democratic structure. The SC has given its opinion and basically supported our stand,” Gandhi said.
He added that though the apex court had ordered a probe into allegations of whether the Pegasus software was used at the instructions of the Centre to spy on a range of Indian citizens – politicians, judges, academics, activists, journalists, etc. – “we want to know the Prime Minister’s view… we will raise the issue again in Parliament.”
Dubbing the Pegasus software as a “weapon”, the Congress leader claimed that “only two people – the Prime Minister and the Home Minister (Amit Shah) – could have sanctioned its use to spy on Indians… the use of Pegasus is illegal; it is a criminal act and we want to know if the PM authorised it”.
While maintaining that the Congress will respect the outcome of the Supreme Court-monitored probe – the matter will next be heard by a three-member apex court bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana after eight weeks – Gandhi said the Congress and Opposition still want answers to three questions.
“Who authorised use of Pegasus… who was it used against… and finally, did any other country have access to information of our people?” Gandhi asked.
The former Congress president claimed that “central institutions of this country were attacked by Pegasus” and demanded that Modi answer questions on the matter since “the PM is not above the nation, above our institutions”.
He said that while the court-monitored probe will look into aspects laid out in the terms of reference of the Supreme Court’s order, “we want to know whether the PM was privy to the data that was being collected as this is a criminal act”.
Earlier in the day, the apex court bench headed by CJI Ramana, on a clutch of petitions, ordered that a three-member panel of cyber security experts will look into various allegations made in the Pegasus snoopgate row. The panel would be headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran.
Irrespective of the outcome of the probe, the court’s order, per se, has come as a stinging indictment of the Centre and its stand, thus far, on the Pegasus row. In its 46-page order, the court observed that “in a democratic country governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by following the procedure established by law under the Constitution.”
The court also took exception to the manner in which the Centre had been responding to the proceedings in the case, so far.
Also read: No plan to file detailed affidavit on Pegasus row, Centre tells SC
“The court gave ample opportunity to the respondent – Union of India – to clarify its stand regarding the allegations raised, and to provide information to assist the court regarding the various actions taken by it over the past two years, since the first disclosed alleged Pegasus spyware attack,” the Bench noted in its order.
It said further: “We had made it clear to the learned Solicitor General on many occasions that we would not push the Respondent – Union of India – to provide any information that may affect the national security concerns of the country. However, despite the repeated assurances and opportunities given, ultimately the Respondent - Union of India – has placed on record what they call a “limited affidavit”, which does not shed any light on their stand or provide any clarity as to the facts of the matter at hand.”
The court said: “It is a settled position of law that in matters pertaining to national security, the scope of judicial review is limited,” but added that “this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of ‘national security’ is raised.”
The order stated further, “national security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although this Court should be circumspect in encroaching upon the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial review.”
The court then went on to list seven “compelling reasons” that led it to order its probe into the allegations. These included the need to examine if use of the spyware had allegedly impacted right to privacy and freedom of speech of the people it was used against, whether “the entire citizenry is affected by such allegations due to the potential chilling effect, possibility that some foreign authority, agency or private entity is involved in placing citizens of this country under surveillance”, and if the Centre or state governments were party to the “rights’ deprivations of the citizens”.
The court also laid down seven broad terms of reference for the probe panel. These include the powers to inquire into, investigate and determine whether Pegasus was used to spy on Indian citizens, the details of people affected by the spyware attack, whether the Centre had acquired the Pegasus spyware for use against Indians, if any government agency had used the spyware against Indian citizens and if so then under what law or rules, among others.
Also read: Meet the three SC-appointed experts probing Pegasus snooping scandal
