What's new

Welcome

If you already have an account, please login, but if you don't have one yet, you are more than welcome to freely join the community of lawyers around the world..

Register Log in
  • We don't have any responsibilities about the news being sent in this site. Legal News are automatically being collected from sources and submitted in this forum by feed readers. Source of each news is set in the news and a link to its source is always added.
    (Any News older than 21 days from its post time will be deleted automatically!)

Jurist India Supreme Court orders independent expert committee to probe Pegasus allegations

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #1

Dadparvar

Staff member
Nov 11, 2016
10,604
0
6
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday ordered an independent expert committee to investigate the widespread allegations around the use of Pegasus spyware to carry out surveillance on politicians, judges, journalists and activists in the country.

The Pegasus spyware scandal was first unveiled in July by media companies who obtained access to a list of phone numbers belonging to identifiable individuals who are suspected persons of interest to clients of the NSO Group which sells the software. Nearly 300 of these numbers belonged to Indians, and as of now, ten phones have been forensically analyzed to confirm the presence of the Pegasus software.

In this case, the top court compiled a batch of petitions filed by complainants and public interest litigants. The petitioners argued that illegal surveillance through Pegasus spyware constituted violations of the fundamental rights of privacy and freedom of speech under the Indian Constitution. They also stated that since the NSO Group only sells its spyware to governments, the surveillance was most likely being carried by the Indian government or some foreign government agencies.

The Government of India has refused to file a full affidavit on grounds of national security and has maintained that no illegal surveillance took place. The court partially rejected this submission, and held that the government must specifically “plead and prove” the facts which indicate that the information sought must be kept secret on grounds of national security:

It is a settled position of law that in matters pertaining to national security, the scope of judicial review is limited. However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of “national security” is raised. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning.
Due to the seriousness of the allegations, and failure by the Government of India to provide a clear response, the court ordered the constitution of an independent technical committee whose functioning will be overseen by retired judge RV Raveendran.

The committee is responsible for investigating whether the Pegasus spyware was used on devices of Indian citizens for surveillance, whether the Government of India or any state government acquired and/or used the Pegasus spyware, and whether any domestic entity in the country has used the spyware on citizens.

It will make recommendations regarding strengthening the legislative framework around privacy, establishing a mechanism for citizens to raise grievances on suspicion of illegal suspicion, setting up an independent agency to investigate cyber security vulnerabilities and any measure that can be taken by the Supreme Court in the interim period to uphold citizen’s rights.

The post India Supreme Court orders independent expert committee to probe Pegasus allegations appeared first on JURIST - News - Legal News & Commentary.

Continue reading...

Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top