Pegasus: Truth must come out

The Supreme Court committee will do Indian citizens justice if it reconciles the idea of security with liberty and privacy

The Supreme Court of India has appointed a committee to investigate if any Indian agency procured and used the highly sophisticated spyware, Pegasus, to target citizens. Headed by a retired judge, the panel comprises members with domain knowledge of cybersecurity and intelligence. The Chief Justice of India-led bench has said that its objective was to balance the rights of the citizens and the powers of the State, which cannot be allowed “a free pass” by merely citing national security. To this end, the terms of reference and the choice of the experts are sound. The issue pertains to fundamental principles of the rule of law as well as security in an age when technology has complicated both domains.

It is important for the SC committee to use its wide ambit to ascertain whether Pegasus was procured, if it was done so legally, and, in case it was used against citizens, whether there was an appropriate legal framework for such application (AFP)

It is important for the committee to use its wide ambit to ascertain whether Pegasus was procured, if it was done so legally, and, in case it was used against citizens, whether there was an appropriate legal framework for such application. Legal questions of proportionality are involved, and the task will not be easy considering the technical nature of military-grade malware and the typical administrative obscurity in which national intelligence functions. Moreover, Pegasus infections are hard to detect, which means the committee could need to look at evidence of procurement and authorisation by agencies. This, in turn, could involve taking a deeper look into a domain of the security establishment that has typically been shrouded in secrecy. Whether that secrecy and the oversight mechanisms are congruent with a democratic India’s rule of law will also be under scrutiny.

The issue goes far beyond the political wrangling that has surrounded the Pegasus controversy. At the heart of it lies the question of how the State secures itself and its citizens, but without using instruments operating in a grey legal zone, for partisan ends, and which violate fundamental rights. Indeed, modern tools of technology make it easier for black operations to be carried out with a much lower risk of exposure than before. The scope, scale and nature of the global surveillance operations, first exposed by American whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, is an enduring reminder of such threats. The threats to personal liberty from tools such as Pegasus will remain. The committee will do citizens justice if it reconciles the idea of security with liberty and privacy. But for that, the truth about Pegasus must first come out.