Hima kohli, Judge

The Supreme Court-appointed committee, set up to look into the allegations of the government allegedly using Israeli software Pegasus for snooping, concluded that the spyware was not found in the 29 mobile phones examined by it, but the malware was found in five mobile phones.A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli took into note the reports submitted by the three-member technical committee which stated that malware was found in five out of 29 mobile phones but there is no conclusive proof of Pegasus spyware.The technical committee and overseeing committee, set up on the alleged use of Pegasus spyware to snoop on phones of politicians, activists and journalists, informed the bench that the government of India did not cooperate in its probe."Technical committee says the government of India has not helped it," the bench said while reading the report of the committee.Reading the report of the committee, the bench said, "We are concerned about the technical committee report... 29 phones were given and in five phones some malware was found but the technical committee says it cannot be said to be Pegasus."The bench said three reports were submitted by the committee. Two reports of the technical committee and one report of the overseeing committee by a retired judge of the Supreme Court Justice RV Raveendran were filed.Meanwhile, Committee said reports are not for public distribution and is confidential, said the bench.Reports contain information about malware, information of public research material, and material extracted from private mobile instruments which may contain confidential information, the bench said."Overseeing judge has submitted a report on protecting citizens, the future course of action, accountability, surveillance, suggestions on how to protect, recommendations etc.," said the bench.However, the apex court said that it will consider how to take the case forward. The bench said it may upload the report on the overseeing committee on the website of the top court.The matter was then posted for hearing after four weeks.The technical committee had submitted its interim report to the top court and said that the committee has examined 29 mobile devices suspected of malware infection and also recorded statements of journalists and others.Earlier in the past year, the apex court-appointed committee, headed by a former top court judge looked into the allegations of snooping by Pegasus spyware.The committee was headed by Justice Raveendran who was tasked to oversee the functioning of the technical committee and assisted by Alok Joshi, former IPS officer and Dr Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, Sub Committee in (International Organisation of Standardisation/International Electro-Technical Commission/Joint Technical Committee).The three members of the technical committee consisted Dr Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat; Dr Prabaharan P, Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala; and Dr Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra.The top court had said that in a democratic country governed by the rule of law, "indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed" and ordered that the three-member committee, headed by former top court judge RV Raveendran.The apex court had noted that in the absence of the Centre not clarifying its stand on the issue, the court had no option but to set up an expert panel.The Centre had refused to file a detailed affidavit on the issue citing national security. Members of civilized democratic society have a reasonable expectation of privacy, CJI Ramana had said."Privacy is not the singular concern of journalists or social activists. Every citizen of India ought to be protected against violations of privacy. It is this expectation which enables us to exercise our choices, liberties, and freedom. As with all the other fundamental rights, this Court therefore must recognize that certain limitations exist when it comes to the right to privacy as well. However, any restrictions imposed must necessarily pass constitutional scrutiny," the bench had added in its order.It is undeniable that surveillance and the knowledge that one is under the threat of being spied on can affect the way an individual decides to exercise his or her rights and such a scenario might result in self-censorship, the apex court had stated further.The mere invocation of national security by the State does not render the Court a mute spectator, said the apex court while setting up the committee. It further noted that there has been no specific denial of any of the facts by the Centre averred by the Petitioners.The bench had said it has passed an order appointing an expert committee whose functioning will be overseen by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court to probe the truth or falsity of certain allegations.The Centre had earlier told the apex court that it was willing to set up a committee of independent experts to examine all aspects of the alleged Pegasus snooping row. It had maintained that what software was used for the interception in the interest of national security can't be open for public debate.Several pleas were filed before the top court on snooping row by senior journalists N Ram, and Sashi Kumar, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas of Communist Marxist Party of India (Marxist) and advocate ML Sharma, former Union minister Yashwant Sinha, RSS ideologue KN Govindacharya.Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, SNM Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh and Ipsa Shatakshi, who are reported to be on the potential list of snoop targets of Pegasus spyware, had also approached the top court along with The Editors Guild of India (EGI) among others.The pleas had sought an inquiry headed by a sitting or retired judge of the top court to investigate the alleged snooping.The petition had said that the targeted surveillance using military-grade spyware is an unacceptable violation of the right to privacy which has been held to be a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 by the Supreme Court in the KS Puttaswamy case.( With inputs from ANI )Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Hima KohliFOLLOW

Hima kohli, Latest News

New Delhi, Sep 2 The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea filed by NGO Jammu ... ...

New Delhi, Sep 1 The Supreme Court on Thursday said it cannot form an opinion on veracity of ... ...

New Delhi, Sep 1 The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union Ministry of of Home Affairs to ... ...

New Delhi, Aug 26 The Supreme Court on Friday noted that freebies announced by political parties may push ... ...

New Delhi, Aug 26 The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) recommendation for ... ...

New Delhi, Aug 26 The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal against denial of sanction to prosecute ... ...

New Delhi, Aug 26 Senior advocate Dushyant Dave on Friday broke down while bidding farewell to Chief Justice ... ...

The Supreme Court-appointed committee, set up to look into the allegations of the government allegedly using Israeli software Pegasus for snooping, concluded that the spyware was not found in the 29 mobile phones examined by it, but the malware was f ...