'What's Wrong': Supreme Court Backs Spyware Use—Everything You Need to Know About the Pegasus Controversy

Marketed to governments for combating terrorism and serious crime, Pegasus has been controversial due to its alleged misuse to target journalists, activists, politicians, and other civil society members globally, raising concerns about privacy violations.
Pegasus spyware can infiltrate mobile devices, extract data (such as messages, emails, and photos), and activate microphones and cameras without user consent.
Pegasus spyware can infiltrate mobile devices, extract data (such as messages, emails, and photos), and activate microphones and cameras without user consent.
Published on

New Delhi- On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a hearing presided over by Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh, ruled against the public disclosure of a court-appointed committee’s report on the Pegasus spyware allegations, citing concerns over national security and sovereignty. The court stated that while sensitive portions of the report touching on these issues would remain confidential, individuals who submitted their phones for examination could be informed if their devices were included, with redactions as necessary.

The bench remarked that the use of spyware for national security is permissible but must not violate citizens’ constitutional rights, emphasizing, “What is wrong if the country is using spyware? Against whom it is used, it is the question.” The hearing was deferred to July 30, 2025, to allow petitioners to submit a U.S. court judgment in a case filed by WhatsApp against NSO Group, the developer of Pegasus.

This report outlines the Pegasus controversy, the Supreme Court’s investigation, the committee’s findings, and the broader context.

The Pegasus Controversy: What It’s All About

Pegasus is a sophisticated spyware developed by the Israeli cyber-intelligence firm NSO Group. It can infiltrate mobile devices, extract data (such as messages, emails, and photos), and activate microphones and cameras without user consent. Marketed to governments for combating terrorism and serious crime, Pegasus has been controversial due to its alleged misuse to target journalists, activists, politicians, and other civil society members globally, raising concerns about privacy violations.

In July 2021, the Pegasus Project, a collaborative investigation by Forbidden Stories and Amnesty International, revealed a leaked list of 50,000 phone numbers worldwide, including over 300 from India, as potential targets for Pegasus surveillance. The Indian numbers included: Two Union ministers, three opposition leaders, a constitutional authority and some Journalists, activists, and others.

Forensic analysis by Amnesty International’s Security Lab on 10 Indian phones confirmed signs of attempted or successful Pegasus infections in some cases. The Indian government denied these allegations, asserting that unauthorized surveillance is prohibited under Indian law and calling the claims “baseless.”

Supreme Court’s Investigation: Formation of the Technical Committee

Prompted by petitions from journalists, activists, and opposition leaders, the Supreme Court, on October 27, 2021, ordered the formation of an independent technical committee to investigate the Pegasus allegations. Led by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana, the court tasked the committee with:

  • Determining whether Pegasus was used to surveil Indian citizens.

  • Identifying the entity responsible for its acquisition (Union or state governments, or any agency).

  • Assessing the legality of its use under Indian surveillance laws.

  • Recommending measures to enhance cybersecurity and protect privacy.

The committee included three cybersecurity experts: Dr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Dr. Prabaharan P, and Dr. Ashwin Anil Gumaste. It was overseen by retired Supreme Court Justice R.V. Raveendran, assisted by former IPS officer Alok Joshi and cybersecurity expert Dr. Sundeep Oberoi. The court rejected the government’s blanket invocation of “national security,” stating that it could not evade judicial scrutiny.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, argued that disclosing details about spyware use could compromise national security. The government submitted a limited affidavit that neither confirmed nor denied Pegasus use. The Supreme Court noted the government’s lack of cooperation with the committee, which hindered the investigation.

Findings of the Technical Committee

Report Submission

In August 2022, the technical committee submitted its report to the Supreme Court. The report was divided into three parts:

Technical Committee Report: Contained forensic analysis of examined devices.

Digital Images of Phones: Included data from the 29 phones analyzed.

Overseeing Judge’s Report: Provided recommendations by Justice R.V. Raveendran.

Pegasus spyware can infiltrate mobile devices, extract data (such as messages, emails, and photos), and activate microphones and cameras without user consent.
Supreme Court Slams Casteism in Tamil Nadu’s 2003 Honour-Killing Verdict—Read Full Story

Key Findings

Malware Detection: Of the 29 phones examined, five showed evidence of malware infection. However, the committee could not conclusively identify the malware as Pegasus.

Government Non-Cooperation: The Central government did not fully cooperate, limiting the committee’s access to critical information.

No Definitive Pegasus Evidence: The presence of Pegasus spyware was not conclusively established.

Recommendations

Justice R.V. Raveendran’s report proposed:

  • Strengthening national cybersecurity infrastructure.

  • Safeguarding citizens’ constitutional right to privacy.

  • Establishing mechanisms to prevent unauthorized surveillance.

  • Prosecuting private firms engaged in illegal surveillance.

  • Creating a grievance redressal system for citizens suspecting surveillance.

  • Amending surveillance laws to align with the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right.

Legal and Global Context

Indian laws, including Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Telegraph Act, 1885, permit interception under conditions such as public emergency or national security. The Supreme Court emphasized that any surveillance must comply with the constitutional right to privacy, as established in the Puttaswamy v. Union of India case.

Global Developments

The Pegasus controversy extends beyond India. In a U.S. district court case, WhatsApp sued NSO Group, alleging that Pegasus was used to hack its users, including 300 in India. The court’s ruling, which found NSO liable, is expected to be submitted in the Supreme Court’s next hearing, potentially providing additional context.

The Pegasus controversy in India, sparked by allegations of unauthorized surveillance, has raised critical questions about privacy and national security. The Supreme Court’s stance on April 29, to withhold sensitive parts of the technical committee’s report reflects its effort to balance these concerns. The committee’s inconclusive findings, due to the government’s lack of cooperation, underscore the challenges of investigating sophisticated spyware. With the next hearing scheduled for July 30, 2025, and the inclusion of the U.S. court judgment, the case may yield further insights into the use of Pegasus in India.

Pegasus spyware can infiltrate mobile devices, extract data (such as messages, emails, and photos), and activate microphones and cameras without user consent.
1000 Days Behind Bars: Activists, Journalists Rally for Rupesh Kumar Singh’s Release in Open Letter to CJI

You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.

The Mooknayak English - Voice Of The Voiceless
en.themooknayak.com