In a statement that has stirred both legal and public debate, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday remarked, “What’s wrong if the government uses spyware against anti-national elements?” during a hearing related to the ongoing Pegasus surveillance controversy.
This statement, made by a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, comes in response to petitions alleging the illegal surveillance of journalists, activists, politicians, and academics using the Israeli spyware Pegasus, previously exposed in a global investigative report.
Context: The Pegasus Surveillance Controversy
Pegasus, developed by Israeli cyber-intelligence firm NSO Group, is capable of covertly accessing mobile phones, including cameras, microphones, and encrypted communications.
The spyware was allegedly deployed in India, with opposition leaders, lawyers, and journalists claiming they were targeted. The government has neither confirmed nor denied using Pegasus, citing national security concerns.
Supreme Court's Remark: National Security vs Privacy
During Tuesday's hearing, the court questioned the blanket criticism of government surveillance tools.
"If the government is using spyware to track individuals involved in anti-national activities, then what's wrong with that?" the bench asked.
The remark has added fuel to an already contentious debate on:
-
The limits of state surveillance
-
The definition and scope of 'anti-national activities'
-
Citizens’ right to privacy, as upheld in the landmark 2017 SC judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India
Reactions Pour In
Civil Liberties Groups
Several civil rights organizations expressed alarm.
"Such remarks risk legitimizing unregulated surveillance in the name of national security," said Apar Gupta, Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation.
Opposition Leaders
Leaders from the Congress, AAP, and TMC criticized the court's stance.
"You cannot label dissent as anti-national and then justify spyware against it," said senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh.
Government’s Stand
The Union Government, while maintaining strategic ambiguity, has repeatedly stated it operates within the bounds of existing surveillance laws such as:
-
The Telegraph Act, 1885
-
The Information Technology Act, 2000
It has also argued that certain tools are essential for combating terrorism, cyber threats, and anti-national conspiracies.
Legal and Constitutional Questions
The Supreme Court in 2021 had appointed a technical committee to probe the Pegasus allegations. That committee submitted its report in 2022, but the findings were kept sealed, citing national interest.
Key legal questions now reignited include:
-
Is the use of Pegasus constitutional without judicial or parliamentary oversight?
-
How do we ensure accountability while protecting national security?
-
What are the safeguards for non-violent dissenters, whistleblowers, and journalists?
Next Hearing and Likely Outcome
The matter has been listed for a detailed hearing next week. Legal experts anticipate the court may push for a clearer legal framework or oversight mechanism for the use of advanced surveillance technologies in India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s comment on using spyware against “anti-national elements” may reflect a broader dilemma faced by democracies worldwide: How to balance national security with individual liberties in an age of digital espionage. With stakes high and public sentiment divided, all eyes remain on how the court navigates this complex constitutional terrain.