The Pegasus row has reached a stage where a Supreme Court bench has constituted a probe panel headed by former Supreme Court Justice, Raju V Raveendran. Significantly, the court stated in a footnote that what it aims at is to uphold the Constitutional aspirations and rule of law without being consumed in “political rhetoric.” The establishment indulging in snooping on its citizens is objectionable in a system of democracy where the citizen’s right to privacy is paramount. The question is how to save the system of democracy from such motivated deviations from its basic tenets. The Pegasus row erupted in July last. Israeli NSO group’s spyware was reported to have been used by the Indian establishment – read the Modi government – to eavesdrop on some 300 mobile phones including those of opposition leaders, some ministers, journalists and businessmen.
The SC-appointed panel will look at all sides of the matter – namely, the right to privacy of citizens, right of journalists to ensure privacy of their sources of information and the limits to the claim from the government side that it is required to ensure national security. It was on this ground that the Centre refused to divulge related information to the apex court. The SC has asked the panel to also give recommendations on the legal and policy framework to protect citizens from surveillance by the state and how to enhance cyber security. Specifically, the SC said protection of information sources is a basic condition for freedom of press. Without such protection, sources may not assist the media in revealing matters of public interest. This is well-said. Most rackets in governmental functioning including pilfering of public money would not come to light unless sources within the government provide such details to the media. They may have their own reasons for doing this, but an eminent public cause is served thereof. Identifying such sources of information would mean a drying up of such sources for scribes.
At the same time, snooping is part of governmental engagements everywhere. Question is, to what extent a government can go. Matters concerning national security, for instance, cannot be treated lightly. In a recent instance, a former chief minister was accused of having a close liaison with a Pakistani woman journalist. ISI is known to adopt many tricks to elicit classified information about Indian policies and military matters. Questions would arise as to how a government should handle such situations when hints come to it. While a blanket ban on snooping is uncalled for the point is that government should refrain from doing so to protect its limited electoral interests.
