Summary
The Court appointed an independent three-member technical committee, overseen by former Supreme Court judge R.V. Raveendran, to investigate alleged Pegasus surveillance. The supporting material and the Union’s insufficiently specific response justified further inquiry, without establishing that the alleged surveillance had occurred or who was responsible. National-security concerns required substantiation and did not automatically exclude judicial review. The committee was also tasked with recommending safeguards; the petitions remained pending.
Issues
- Whether the material concerning alleged Pegasus surveillance justified an independent inquiry.
- Whether a general invocation of national security foreclosed judicial scrutiny or explained withholding the requested information.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaPrivacy restrictions required legality, legitimate State purpose and proportionality; these principles informed the need to examine the alleged intrusion. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of IndiaSurveillance could chill speech and press freedom, including by compromising journalistic sources. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe Court required meaningful assistance in fundamental-rights proceedings and ordered an independent factual inquiry while retaining the petitions. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
Held
- Privacy was constitutionally protected but not absolute. State intrusion needed a lawful basis, legitimate aim and proportionate means with appropriate safeguards. The potential chilling effect on expression and protection of journalistic sources reinforced the importance of examining these allegations. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Newspaper reports alone ordinarily did not constitute adequate public-interest pleadings. Here subsequent petitions by purported victims, expert affidavits and other supporting material supplied a prima facie basis for examination; this was not a final factual finding that Pegasus had been deployed. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 51, 56)
- Judicial review in national-security matters was limited, but mere invocation of that concern did not create blanket immunity. A claim to withhold information required specific pleading and justification of the constitutional concern or statutory immunity. The Union’s omnibus denial did not sufficiently answer the material here. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51)
- Given allegations implicating governmental agencies, the Union’s proposed committee would not adequately satisfy the requirement that justice appear impartial. The Court instead appointed three independent technical experts under Justice Raveendran’s oversight, with specified assistance. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60)
- The inquiry covered alleged deployment, affected persons, governmental acquisition and authorisation, and the response to earlier reports. Recommendations were sought on surveillance safeguards, cyber security and grievance mechanisms. The committee could devise its procedure, obtain records and statements, and was to receive full governmental facilities and support; its report was to be placed before the Court expeditiously. (¶¶ 61, 62, 63, 64)
Result
Independent technical committee constituted under Justice R.V. Raveendran’s oversight with investigative and recommendatory terms of reference. Union and States directed to provide full support; expeditious report requested. Matters listed after eight weeks, with allegations left for inquiry.