“What Is Wrong If Country Is Using Spyware?”: Supreme Court Says It Will Consider If Someone Says Pegasus Was Used Against Him

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “What is wrong if the country is using that spyware against the...? Let us be clear, no issue in having a spyware… Against whom it is used is the question. We can't compromise the security of the nation. ”

The Court made this observation while responding to the submission of Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, appearing for some of the Petitioners, who submitted that the question is whether the government has with it any spyware, because if it does, it may continue using it.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed with the observations of the Bench and said, "Terrorists cannot have privacy rights, even if you claim them to have".

The Court added, “Yes, using against whom is the question? Private civil individuals, whose right to privacy is protected under the Constitution, if they complain, it can always be looked into.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that new evidence had emerged, including a U.S. District Court judgment which found India among the countries where hacking had taken place. “We have got a judgment of US District Court. They have given a finding that India is one of the countries where there was a hack,” he said, adding, “WhatsApp itself has disclosed that there was a hack.”

Justice Kant pointed out that the Court had already constituted a committee to examine these allegations and asked, “What survives here? We constituted a committee, report came…” He added, “Some individuals might have apprehension, they might be justified to say, please let me see the report, I am saved or not.”

Sibal responded, “That time your lordships had no indication whether hacking had taken place. Even experts didn't say so…Now you have evidence…Evidence by WhatsApp. We will circulate the judgment. The redacted portion (of the expert committee report) should be given to concerned individuals so they know.”

The Court suggested a mechanism by which specific individuals could inquire if they were affected. “It can be objective Q&A… you can ask whether x name is there in list? We can see report and tell you whether it is,” Justice Kant said.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan also argued that there was credible evidence of the State using spyware against its own citizens: “I can show with substantial proof.”

While the Court ruled out any blanket public disclosure of the Technical Committee's report, it indicated that limited access could be granted to individuals whose rights may have been violated. “We are not going to disclose a word. But where individuals have been affected, that part we can examine,” said Justice Kant. He added, “It should not be made only a document of discussion in the street...”

Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted, “There can't be roving enquiry.” Justice Kant responded, “Report is lying sealed, even I don't recollect.”

The Court directed the petitioners to furnish names of individuals who suspect their devices were infected. “By next date, you can give names of individuals having apprehension,” Justice Kant said.

The matter will now be heard on July 30, 2025.

The Pegasus controversy surfaced in 2018, with media reports alleging the use of Israeli spyware to target Indian journalists, activists, and opposition leaders. In October 2021, the Supreme Court formed a Technical Committee under Justice R.V. Raveendran (Retd.) to probe the allegations. The Committee examined 29 devices and found malware in five, though it could not confirm Pegasus. It also noted possible non-cooperation from the government and suggested that poor cybersecurity hygiene may have contributed to the malware.

Cause Title: Manohar Lal Sharma V. Union Of India (Diary No. 16884 / 2021)