The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that there is nothing inherently wrong with a country possessing spyware for national security purposes, emphasizing that the real concern lies in how and against whom such tools are deployed.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh made the remarks while hearing a series of petitions filed in 2021 following allegations that the Israeli-developed Pegasus spyware was used to surveil journalists, political figures, and civil rights activists in India.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, representing some of the petitioners, argued that the primary issue is not whether his client’s phone was compromised, but rather whether the government owns and continues to use such spyware. “Even if our phones are clean, the question is whether the government acquired this spyware. If so, what stops them from using it again?” he contended.
In response, Justice Kant noted, “There’s nothing wrong with a country having spyware to defend itself against terrorists. The key issue is who it’s used against. National security cannot be compromised.” He stressed that owning such surveillance tools isn’t problematic in itself; misuse is what needs judicial scrutiny.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, argued that terrorists cannot be extended privacy rights. “Even if someone claims such rights for them, they simply do not apply,” he said.
Justice Kant agreed that while individuals involved in threats to national security cannot claim constitutional protections for privacy, “a private civilian certainly does have a right to privacy under the Constitution, and any complaint in that regard is subject to judicial examination.”
In 2021, amid the global Pegasus controversy, the Supreme Court had constituted a technical committee, led by former judge Justice R.V. Raveendran, to investigate the claims of illegal surveillance. The committee eventually reported that it had found no definitive evidence of Pegasus spyware being used on the devices it analyzed.
Despite the report’s findings, the petitioners have now approached the apex court requesting redacted versions of the report be made available to them. The bench has listed the matter for the next hearing on July 30.
