Supreme Court lists Pegasus case for hearing on April 22

Photo used for illustration purpose only.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The Supreme Court on Friday (March 7, 2025) agreed to hear on April 22 petitions alleging that the Indian establishment used Israeli military grade spyware to snoop on personalities across a spectrum of politicians, activists, and journalists.

A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant said all the petitions in the case would be listed together in April for a comprehensive hearing.

When the case was called, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, said the case was coming up after a gap of over two years.

Also read: Explained | The operations of the Pegasus spyware  

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner side, brought to the court’s notice that only two petitions were listed for hearing on Friday.

The Bench directed the entire batch of petitions to be listed on April 22. Petitioners included senior journalists N. Ram and Shashi Kumar who had sought a fair probe into the snooping allegations.

In October 2021, the top court had formed a technical committee to look into the snooping allegations while noting that there was a “broad consensus that unauthorised surveillance/accessing of stored data from the phones and other devices of citizens for reasons other than nation’s security would be illegal, objectionable and a matter of concern”.

In August 2022, after perusing the committee’s confidential report, a Bench headed by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana (now retired) informed in open court that 29 mobile phones were examined. The committee had detected the presence of a malware in some of them, but could not confirm the presence of Pegasus.

The top court Bench, which was headed by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana (now retired) had also conveyed the committee’s observation that the Union government had not been “cooperative”.

Mr. Mehta had responded by saying he was not personally aware of what had happened. “But if they [committee] had asked ‘whether you are using a particular malware’, we would have said ‘we are not using’. If they had asked ‘what you are using, we may not have said it’.” he had said.

The records that were confidentially placed before the top court consisted of digital images of phones examined for spyware infection, report of the technical committee and the report of former Supreme Court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, who was tasked to consider improvement in cyber security.

Justice Raveendran had recommended striking a balance between the country’s cyber security and right to individual privacy against unauthorised surveillance. The retired top court judge has said private firms resorting to illegal surveillance ought to be prosecuted. He had also suggested the formation of a special investigation agency for investigating cyber attacks and to strengthen the cyber security network of the country. Justice Raveendran has recommended that the government should create a mechanism for the citizens to complain about surveillance and alleged implantation of malware in their personal devices.