Pegasus Surveillance Allegations: Findings of the SC-Ordered Committee
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Pegasus spyware controversy has been one of the most critical challenges to the right to privacy in recent years. The issue gained prominence after allegations surfaced that Pegasus, a sophisticated spyware developed by NSO Group, was used to target journalists, activists, politicians, and government officials in India. The Supreme Court of India took cognizance of the matter and constituted an expert committee to investigate these claims. This article delves into the findings of the committee and their implications for privacy, national security, and democratic accountability.
Background of the Pegasus Allegations
Pegasus spyware enables its operator to remotely access and control a target's device, extracting sensitive data, including messages, emails, and even encrypted communications. The controversy erupted globally after reports from media outlets and Amnesty International alleged its misuse against individuals critical of governments. In India, similar allegations led to public outrage, with claims that the spyware was used for unlawful surveillance.
Recognizing the severity of the allegations, the Supreme Court intervened in 2021. Citing Articles 14 (Equality before the law), 19 (Freedom of Speech), and 21 (Right to Privacy), the apex court emphasized the need to safeguard constitutional rights and protect democratic processes.
Findings of the SC-Ordered Committee
The committee, led by Justice R.V. Raveendran, was tasked with investigating whether the government or its agencies used Pegasus and to what extent these actions, if proven, violated citizens' rights. Key findings include:
- No Conclusive Evidence of Pegasus Use by the Government:
The committee's technical analysis found traces of malware in certain devices but could not definitively establish the use of Pegasus. The absence of direct cooperation from NSO Group and limited data from the Indian government contributed to this inconclusive result.
- Lapses in Surveillance Protocols:
While some instances of unauthorized surveillance were identified, the tools and methods used could not be attributed to Pegasus. However, the findings indicated significant gaps in the adherence to procedural safeguards outlined under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Impact on Privacy and Freedom of Expression:
The report underscored that even the perception of surveillance could stifle dissent and chill free speech. The committee highlighted the need for robust mechanisms to protect privacy, as mandated by the landmark Puttaswamy Judgment (2017), which recognized the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.
Legal Implications
The findings prompt several critical questions:
- Legislative Reforms: The absence of specific legislation governing digital surveillance underscores the need for a comprehensive data protection law. The pending Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, must address these gaps to prevent misuse.
- Judicial Oversight: Strengthening judicial oversight mechanisms for surveillance orders is essential. As noted by the committee, existing provisions under the IT Act and Telegraph Act lack adequate safeguards against abuse.
- International Cooperation: As spyware like Pegasus operates across borders, enhanced collaboration with international organizations and companies is crucial to regulate such technologies.
Recommendations from the Committee
The committee proposed several measures to address the concerns raised during the investigation:
- Independent Oversight Authority:
Establishing an independent body to oversee surveillance activities and ensure compliance with constitutional principles.
- Technology Audits:
Regular audits of government surveillance tools to ensure they are not used beyond their legal mandates.
- Awareness and Training:
Educating law enforcement and intelligence agencies about ethical surveillance practices and the repercussions of violations.
- Data Protection Legislation:
Expediting the passage of robust data protection laws to safeguard citizens' digital rights.
Conclusion
The Pegasus spyware allegations have highlighted the need for a transparent framework to balance national security with individual rights. The Supreme Court’s intervention and the committee's findings are steps in the right direction. However, the absence of conclusive evidence underscores the challenges of investigating such sophisticated technologies. Moving forward, the focus must remain on strengthening legal and institutional safeguards to uphold democratic values in the digital age.
The controversy is a wake-up call for India to embrace stronger data protection norms and accountability mechanisms, ensuring that technology serves as a tool for progress, not oppression.
RELATED Blog
0 comments