Headline of the Article:
Pegasus Spyware Case: Balancing National Security and Fundamental Rights.
To the Point:
The Pegasus spyware controversy ignited intense debate in India over unauthorized surveillance,
data privacy, and the legality of State action. The Supreme Court's landmark intervention and recent
2025 observations shed light on how State surveillance intersects with constitutional freedoms,
especially the right to privacy.
Use of Legal Jargon:
Key terms include:
- Surveillance
- Judicial oversight
- Right to privacy (Article 21)
- Proportionality test
- Encryption and interception
- Due process
- Fundamental Rights
- National security doctrine.
The Proof:
In 2021, a consortium of global media houses including The Wire in India revealed the potential use
of Pegasus spyware to target opposition leaders, journalists, judges, and activists. Investigative
journalism linked over 300 Indian phone numbers to Pegasus surveillance without judicial sanction.
This led to multiple petitions in the Supreme Court demanding an independent probe andsafeguards against unauthorized electronic surveillance.
Abstract:
Pegasus is a sophisticated spyware developed by the Israeli NSO Group, capable of zero-click
attacks to access data, calls, camera, and more. While governments may use such technology for
lawful surveillance, misuse against civilians violates constitutional protections. In response to
allegations of abuse, the Supreme Court in 2021 formed a technical committee and issued
guidelines emphasizing the importance of judicial review and proportionality. The April 2025
Supreme Court observation clarified that...
Case Laws:
1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)- Recognized the Right to Privacy as a fundamental
right under Article 21. Introduced the three-fold test of legality, necessity, and proportionality for any
intrusion.
2. PUCL v. Union of India (1997)- Laid down procedural safeguards for telephone tapping under
Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) - Expanded the interpretation of "procedure
established by law" to include fairness, justice, and reasonableness.
4. Aadhaar Judgment (2018)- Affirmed the need for data protection and restricted indiscriminate
data sharing by the State.
Conclusion:
The Pegasus controversy has brought to light the urgent need for a robust legal framework to
regulate surveillance in India. While national security is a legitimate State interest, unchecked
surveillance without transparency, accountability, or judicial oversight is unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court's statement in 2025 clarifies that the real danger lies not in spyware, but in itsmisuse. This landmark moment offers an opportunity to strengthen privacy rights and uphold
democratic values.
FAQs:
1. Q: What is Pegasus spyware?
A: Pegasus is military-grade spyware that can secretly access all data on a targeted device
without the user's knowledge.
2. Q: Is using Pegasus illegal in India?
A: Using spyware is not illegal if done under the law with proper authorization. Misuse without
judicial oversight violates fundamental rights.
3. Q: What did the Supreme Court say in April 2025?
A: The Court stated that the use of spyware is not inherently wrong, but its misuse-especially
against civilians-is the main concern.
4. Q: What are the existing surveillance laws in India?
A: Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and IT Act, 2000 permit surveillance in specific situations, but lack
clarity and safeguards for digital surveillance.
5. Q: What reforms are needed?
A: India needs a comprehensive data protection and surveillance law with judicial oversight,
transparency, and a grievance redressal mechanism.