2021 INSC 0680
I N   THE  S UPREME  C OURT   OF  I NDIA
C RIMINAL  /C IVIL  O RIGINAL  J URISDICTION
W RIT  P ETITION  (C RL .) N O . 314  OF  2021   
M ANOHAR  L AL  S HARMA                    …P ETITIONER
V ERSUS
U NION   OF  I NDIA   AND  O RS .       …R ESPONDENT ( S )
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 826  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 909  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 861  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 849  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 855  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 829  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 850  OF  2021   
With
1 REPORTABLE

W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 848  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 853  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 851  OF  2021   
With
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 890  OF  2021   
O R D E R   
The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”
­George Orwell, 1984
1. The   present   batch   of   Writ   Petitions   raise   an   Orwellian
concern,   about   the   alleged   possibility   of   utilizing   modern
technology to hear what you hear, see what you see and to know
what   you   do.   In   this   context ,   this   Court   is   called   upon   to
examine an allegation of the use of such a technology, its utility,
need   and   alleged   abuse.   We   make   it   clear   that   our   effort   is   to
uphold   the   constitutional   aspirations   and   rule   of   law,   without
allowing  ourselves to  be consumed in the political  rhetoric. This
2

Court   has   always   been   conscious   of   not   entering   the   political
thicket.   However,   at   the   same   time,   it   has   never   cowered   from
protecting all from the abuses of fundamental rights.   All that we
would   like   to   observe   in   this   regard   is   a   reiteration   of   what   had
already   been   said   by   this   Court   in   Kesavananda   Bharati   v.
State of Kerala,  (Opinion of Justice Khanna)  AIR 1973 SC 1461:
“ 1535 ….   Judicial review is not intended to create what
is sometimes called judicial oligarchy, the aristrocracy
( sic ) of the robe, covert legislation, or Judge­made law.
The   proper   forum   to   fight   for   the   wise   use   of   the
legislative   authority   is   that   of   public   opinion   and
legislative   assemblies.   Such   contest   cannot   be
transferred   to   the   judicial   arena.   That   all
constitutional   interpretations   have   political
consequences   should   not   obliterate   the   fact   that   the
decision   has   to   be   arrived   at   in   the   calm   and
dispassionate   atmosphere   of   the   court   room,   that
Judges   in   order   to   give   legitimacy   to   their   decision
have   to   keep   aloof   from   the   din   and   controversy   of
politics   and   that   the   fluctuating   fortunes   of   rival
political   parties   can   have   for   them   only   academic
interest.   Their   primary   duty   is   to   uphold   the
Constitution   and   the   laws   without   fear   or   favour   and
in doing so, they cannot allow any political ideology or
economic   theory,   which   may   have   caught   their   fancy,
to colour the decision…”
2. A  short   conspectus   of  the   events   leading   up   to   the  present
batch of petitions would not be misplaced to highlight the scope
of the issues at hand. In September 2018, Citizen Lab, which is a
laboratory   based   out   of   the   University   of   Toronto,   Canada,
3

released a report detailing the software capabilities of a “spyware
suite”   called   Pegasus   that   was   being   produced   by   an   Israeli
Technology  firm,   viz. ,   the   NSO   Group.   The   report   indicated   that
individuals from nearly 45 countries were suspected to have been
affected. 
3. The   Pegasus   suite   of   spywares   can   allegedly   be   used   to
compromise the digital devices of an individual through zero click
vulnerabilities,   i.e. ,   without   requiring   any   action   on   the   part   of
the   target   of   the   software.   Once   the   software   infiltrates   an
individual’s   device,   it   allegedly   has   the   capacity   to   access   the
entire   stored   data   on   the   device,   and   has   real   time   access   to
emails,   texts,   phone   calls,   as   well   as   the   camera   and   sound
recording capabilities of the device. Once the device is infiltrated
using   Pegasus,   the   entire   control   over   the   device   is   allegedly
handed over to the Pegasus user who can then remotely  control
all   the   functionalities   of   the   device   and   switch  different   features
on   or   off.   The   NSO   Group   purportedly   sells   this   extremely
powerful   software   only   to   certain   undisclosed   Governments   and
the   end   user   of   its   products   are   “exclusively   government
intelligence   and   law   enforcement   agencies”   as   per   its   own
website.
4

4. In   May   2019,   the   global   messaging   giant   WhatsApp   Inc.
identified   a   vulnerability   in   its   software   that   enabled   Pegasus
spyware to infiltrate the devices of WhatsApp’s users. This news
was   followed   by   a   disclosure   that   the   devices   of   certain   Indians
were   also   affected,   which   fact   was   acknowledged   by   the   then
Hon’ble   Minister   of   Law   and   Electronics   and   Information
Technology   in   a   statement   made   in   the   Parliament   on   20 th
November 2019.  
5. On   15 th
  June   2020,   Citizen   Lab,   in   collaboration   with   the
international   human   rights   organization,   Amnesty   International
uncovered   another   spyware   campaign   which   allegedly   targeted
nine individuals in India, some of whom were already suspected
targets in the first spyware attack.
6. On   18 th
  July   2021,   a   consortium   of   nearly   17   journalistic
organizations   from   around   the   world,   including   one   Indian
organization,   released   the   results   of   a   long   investigative   effort
indicating   the   alleged   use   of   the   Pegasus   software   on   several
private individuals. This investigative effort was based on a list of
some   50,000   leaked   numbers   which   were   allegedly   under
surveillance   by   clients   of   the   NSO   Group   through   the   Pegasus
software.   Initially,   it   was   discovered   that   nearly   300   of   these
5

numbers   belonged   to   Indians,   many   of   whom   are   senior
journalists, doctors, political persons, and even some Court staff.
At   the   time   of   filing   of   the   Writ   Petitions,   nearly   10   Indians’
devices   were   allegedly   forensically   analyzed   to   confirm   the
presence of the Pegasus software. 
7. The   above   reports   resulted   in   largescale   action   across   the
globe,   with   certain   foreign   governments   even   diplomatically
engaging with the Israeli Government to determine the veracity of
the   allegations   raised,   while   other   governments   have   initiated
proceedings internally to determine the truth of the same.
8. Respondent­Union of India, through the Hon’ble Minister of
Railways,   Communications   and   Electronics   and   Information
Technology,   took   the   stand   in   Parliament   on   18 th
  July   2021,
when asked about the alleged cyberattack and spyware use, that
the   reports   published   had   no   factual   basis.   The   Minister   also
stated   that   the   Amnesty   report   itself   indicated   that   the   mere
mention   of   a   particular   number   in   the   list   did   not   confirm
whether   the   same   was   infected   by   Pegasus   or   not.   Further,   the
Minister   stated   that   NSO   had   itself   factually   contradicted   many
of the claims made in the Amnesty report. Finally, he stated that
the Indian statutory and legal regime relating to surveillance and
6

interception   of   communication   is   extremely   rigorous,   and   no
illegal surveillance could take place.
9. Some   of   the   Writ   Petitioners   before   this   Court   allege   to   be
direct   victims   of   the   Pegasus   attack,   while   others   are   Public
Interest Litigants. They raise the issue of the inaction on the part
of   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   to   seriously   consider   the
allegations   raised,   relating   to   the   purported   cyberattack   on
citizens of this country. Additionally, the apprehension expressed
by some Petitioners relates to the fact that, keeping in mind the
NSO   Group   disclosure   that   it   sold   its   Pegasus   software   only   to
vetted   Governments,   either   some   foreign   government   or   certain
agencies   of   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   are   using   the   said
software   on   citizens   of   the   country   without   following   the   due
procedure established under law. Therefore, to ensure credibility
of   the   process,   most   of   the   Petitioners   are   seeking   an
independent investigation into the allegations. 
10. Before   considering   the   issues   at   hand   on   merits,   it   is
necessary for this Court to summarize the events that transpired
in the Courtroom proceedings, to give some context to the order
being passed. 
11. On   10 th
  August   2021,   it   was   recorded   by   this   Court   that   a
7

copy   of   some   of   the   petitions   in   this   batch   had   been   served   on
the  learned Solicitor  General. The learned Solicitor  General took
an adjournment at that time to get instructions. 
12. On   16 th
  August   2021,   a   “limited   affidavit”   was   placed   on
record   by   the   learned   Solicitor   General   that   was   filed   by   the
Additional   Secretary,   Ministry   of   Electronics   and   Information
Technology,   Union   of   India.   The   relevant   parts   of   the   limited
affidavit filed by the Respondent­ Union of India are as follows:
“2. I state and submit that  due to the limited time at
the disposal of the deponent/respondents, it is not
possible   to   deal   with   all   the   facts   stated   and   the
contentions  raised   in the batch of petitions  before
this   Hon’ble   Court    .      I   am   therefore,   filing   this
limited   affidavit   at   this   stage   while   reserving
liberty to file further affidavit hereafter in detail.  
I,   however,   respectfully   submit   that   my   not
dealing with any of the petitions para wise may not be
treated   as   my   having   admitted   the   truthfulness   or
otherwise of any of the contents thereof. 
3.   At   the   outset,   it   is   submitted   that   I   hereby
unequivocally deny any and all of the allegations made
against the Respondents in the captioned petition and
other   connected   petitions.   A   bare   perusal   of   the
captioned   petition   and   other   connected   petitions
makes it clear that the same are based on conjectures
and   surmises   or   on   other   unsubstantiated   media
reports or incomplete or uncorroborated material. It is
submitted   that   the   same   cannot   be   the   basis   for
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 
4.   It   is   submitted   that   this   question   stands   already
8

clarified   on   the   floor   of   the   Parliament   by   the   Hon’ble
Minister of Railways, Communications and Electronics
&   Information   Technology   of   India,   Government   of
India. A copy of the statement of the Hon’ble Minister
is attached herewith and marked as  Annexure R­1 .  In
that view of the matter, in the respectful submission of
the deponent, nothing further needs to be done at the
behest   of   the   Petitioner,   more   particularly   when   they
have not made out any case. 
5. It is, however, submitted that  with a view to dispel
any   wrong   narrative   spread   by   certain   vested
interests and with an object of examining the issue
raised,   the   Union   of   India   will   constitute   a
Committee  of Experts  in  the  field  which  will   go  in
to all aspects of the issue .” 
On   that   day,   we   heard   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   Petitioners   and   the   learned   Solicitor   General   at
some length and adjourned the matter for further hearing. 
13. On   the   next   date   of   hearing,   on   17 th
  August   2021,   this
Court   indicated   to   the   learned   Solicitor   General,   while   issuing
notice to the Respondent­Union of India, that the limited affidavit
filed   by   them   was   insufficient   for   the   Court   to   come   to   any
conclusion regarding the stand of the Respondent­Union of India
with   respect   to   the   allegations   raised   by   the   Petitioners.   As   the
limited   affidavit   itself   recorded   that   the   detailed   facts   were   not
adverted to due to a paucity of time, we indicated to the learned
Solicitor General that we were willing to give them further time to
9

enable   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   to   file   a   more   detailed
affidavit.   The   learned   Solicitor   General   indicated   his
apprehension that the disclosure of certain facts might affect the
national security and defense of the nation. 
14. This   Court   clarified   at   that   juncture   that   it   was   not
interested in any information that may have a deleterious impact
on   the   security   of   the   country.   However,   the   Respondent­Union
of India could still place on record facts pertaining to the events
highlighted   by   the   Petitioners,   without   disclosing   information
adjudged to be sensitive by the relevant authorities. 
15. Mr.   Kapil   Sibal,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the
Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   Nos.   826   and   851   of   2021,   fairly
stated   that   the   Petitioners   were   also   concerned   about   the
national  interest  and  would  not  press  for  any  such   information.
The   learned   Solicitor   General   again   took   some   time   to   seek
instructions.
16. When   the   matter   was   next   listed   on   07 th
  September   2021,
the learned Solicitor General requested an adjournment, and we
directed that the matter be listed on 13 th
 September 2021.
17. On   13 th
  September   2021,   we   were   again   informed   by   the
learned Solicitor  General that placing  the information  sought by
10

the   Petitioners   on   an   affidavit   would   be   detrimental   to   the
security   interests   of   the   nation.   The   learned   Solicitor   General
submitted  that   such   information   could   not   be  made  a  matter   of
public   debate   as   the   same   could   be   used   by   terror   groups   to
hamper national security. He reiterated the statement dated 18 th
July   2021   made   by   the   Hon’ble   Minister   of   Railways,
Communications and Electronics and Information Technology on
the   floor   of   the   Parliament   regarding   the   statutory   mechanism
surrounding   surveillance   and   interception   in   the   country   which
ensures   that   unauthorized   surveillance   does   not   take   place.   He
finally submitted that, to assuage the concerns of the public and
to  dispel any  wrong  narratives,  considering   the technical nature
of the issues, the Respondent­Union of India would be willing to
constitute   an   Expert   Committee   which   will   go   into   all   aspects
and file a report before this Court.  
18. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 826 and 851 of 2021,
submitted that the Respondent­Union of India should not act in
a   manner   that   would   prevent   the   Court   from   rendering   justice
and should not withhold information from the Court in a matter
concerning the alleged violation of fundamental rights of citizens.
11

He   submitted   that   in   the   year   2019,   when   certain   reports   of
Pegasus   hacking   WhatsApp   came   to   light,   the   then   Hon’ble
Minister of Law and Information Technology and Communication
had  acknowledged the  reports of  hacking  in Parliament, but the
Respondent­Union  of   India  had   not  indicated   what   actions  were
taken subsequently, which information they could have disclosed
on affidavit. Learned senior counsel submitted that such inaction
by   the   Respondent­   Union   was   a   matter   of   grave   concern,
particularly   when   reputed   international   organizations   with   no
reason   for   bias   against   the   nation   had   also   accepted   the   fact   of
such   an   attack   having   been   made.   Mr.   Sibal   finally   submitted
that   an   independent   probe   into   the   alleged   incident   required   to
take place under the supervision of retired Judges of this Court,
as   was   ordered   by   this   Court   in   the   Jain   Hawala   case.   He
objected   to   the   suggestion   of   the   learned   Solicitor   General   that
the   Respondent­Union   of   India   itself   be   allowed   to   form   a
Committee   on   the   ground   that   any   Committee   formed   to   probe
the   allegations   raised   by   the   Petitioners   should   be   completely
independent from the Respondent­Union of India.
19. Mr.   Shyam   Divan,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the  Petitioner  in Writ Petition  (C) No. 849 of 2021 who
12

claims to be one of the parties whose phone was directly affected
by Pegasus, submitted that Pegasus enabled an entity to not only
surveil or spy on an individual, but also allowed them to implant
false documents and evidence in a device. He relied on affidavits
filed  by  two  experts  in  the  field  of  cyber  security  to  buttress  his
submission   regarding   the   nature   and   function   of   the   software.
Mr. Divan submitted that once such a largescale cyberattack and
threat   had   been   made   public   and   brought   to   the   knowledge   of
the   Respondent­Union   of   India,   it   was   the   State’s   responsibility
to take necessary action to protect the interests and fundamental
rights   of   the   citizens,   particularly   when   there   existed   the   risk
that   such   an   attack   was   made   by   a   foreign   entity.   Mr.   Divan
pressed for  the  interim  relief sought  in  Writ Petition (C) No. 849
of   2021,   whereby   a   response   was   sought   on   affidavit   from   the
Cabinet Secretary. Mr. Divan also supported the prayer made by
Mr.   Sibal   regarding   the   constitution   of   a   special   Committee   or
Special Investigation Team to probe the allegations.
20. Mr.   Rakesh   Dwivedi,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   853   of   2021
submitted   that   the   Petitioners   are   senior   journalists   who   are
victims   of   the   Pegasus   attack.   He   submitted   that   if   the
13

Respondent­Union   of   India   had   made   a   statement   on   affidavit
that it had not used a malware or spied on the Petitioners in an
unauthorized   manner,   that   would   have   been   the   end   of   the
matter. Instead, the Respondent­Union of India had not provided
any   information   on   affidavit.   He   therefore   urged   the   Court   to
constitute   an   independent   Committee   under   its   supervision
rather than allowing the Respondent­Union of India to constitute
a   Committee,   as   suggested   by   the   learned   Solicitor   General,   to
avoid  any  credibility  issues. He further  submitted that requiring
the   Petitioners   to   hand   over   their   phones   to   a   Committee
appointed   by   the   Respondent­Union   of   India,   when   certain
allegations   had   been   raised   against   the   Respondent­Union   of
India, would amount to a secret exercise whose results would not
be trusted by the Petitioners or the public. 
21. Mr.   Dinesh   Dwivedi,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   Petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   848   of   2021
submitted   that   his   client   is   a   respected   journalist   whose   device
had been infected with the Pegasus malware. The main thrust of
his   submission   was   that   if   any   pleading   was   not   specifically
denied,   it   would   be   deemed   to   have   been   admitted.   As   the
Respondent­Union   of   India   had   not   specifically   denied   the
14

Petitioner’s allegation, the same should therefore be deemed to be
admitted   by   the   Respondent­Union   of   India.   Learned   senior
counsel   submitted   that   such   an   attack   on   the   privacy   of   the
Petitioner  was not  only  a  violation  of his  fundamental  right,  but
also amounted to chilling his freedom of speech as a journalist.  
22. Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,  learned  senior   counsel  appearing   on
behalf   of   the   Petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   829   of   2021,
supported   the   prayer   made   by   Mr.   Kapil   Sibal   regarding   the
constitution   of   an   independent   Special   Investigation   Team
headed by a retired Judge to investigate the matter. 
23. Mr.   Colin   Gonsalves,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   909   of   2021,
wherein Petitioner No. 1 is a journalist, lawyer and human rights
activist   who   is   an   affected   party,   while   Petitioner   No.   2   is   a
registered   society   which   works   on   the   promotion   and   protection
of   digital   rights   and   digital   freedom   in   India,   submitted   that   a
number of such digital interceptions were being conducted by the
States and the Respondent­Union of India. He submitted that, in
light   of   the   allegations   raised   against   the   Respondent­Union   of
India in the present matter, it would not be appropriate to allow
the   Respondent­Union   of   India   to   form   a   Committee   to
15

investigate   the   present   allegations.   Further,   the   learned   senior
counsel   pointed   to   the   actions   taken   by   various   foreign
governments in light of the purported spyware attack to highlight
the veracity of the reports by news agencies and the seriousness
with which the allegations were being viewed in other countries.
 
24. Mr. M. L. Sharma, petitioner­in­person in Writ Petition (Crl.)
No.   314   of   2021,   submitted   that   the   Pegasus   suite   of   spywares
was different from other spyware as it allowed an agency to gain
complete   control   over   an   individual’s   device.   He   submitted   that
the   software   could   be   used   to   plant   false   evidence   into   an
individual’s   device,   which   could   then   be   used   to   implicate   the
said   person.   He   therefore   submitted   that   the   alleged   use   of
Pegasus on the citizens of the country, was of grave concern.       
25. The learned Solicitor General rebutted the arguments of the
Petitioners   and   submitted   that   there   was   no   reason   to   question
the credibility of any Committee that might be constituted by the
Respondent­Union   of   India   as   only   experts   independent   of   any
association with the Respondent­Union of India would be a part
of   the   same.   He   further   stated   that   all   technologies   had   the
capability of either being used or abused, and it could not be said
that   the   use   of   such   a   software   was   per   se   impermissible,
16

particularly when a robust legal mechanism existed to check the
use of the same. He finally reiterated that this Court should allow
the   Respondent­Union   of   India   to   constitute   an   Expert
Committee which would be under its supervision.
26. We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned   senior
counsel for the Petitioners, Petitioner­in­person, and the learned
Solicitor General for the Respondent­Union of India.
27. At   the   outset,   certain   nuances   of   the   right   to   privacy   in
India­   its   facets   and   importance,   need   to   be   discussed.
Historically,   privacy   rights   have   been   ‘property   centric’   rather
than  people  centric.  This approach  was seen in  both the  United
States of America as well as in England. In 1604, in the historical
Semayne’s   case,   77   ER   194   (KB)   it   was   famously   held   that
“ every   man’s   house   is   his   castle ”.   This   marked   the   beginning   of
the   development   of   the   law   protecting   people   against   unlawful
warrants and searches. 
28. As William Pitt, the Earl of Chatham stated in March 1763 1
:
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all
the   force   of   the   Crown.   It   may   be   frail—its   roof   may
shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may
enter,   the   rain   may   enter—but   the   King   of   England
cannot   enter!—all   his   force   dares   not   cross   the
threshold of the ruined tenement!” 
1
 Lord Brougham,  Historical Sketches of Statesmen who Flourished in the Time of George III First Series , 
Vol. 1 (1845). 
17

29. As   long   back   as   in   1890,   Samuel   Warren   and   Louis
Brandeis   observed   in   their   celebrated   article   ‘The   Right   to
Privacy’ 2
: 
“Recent   inventions   and   business   methods   call
attention to the next step which must be taken for the
protection   of   the   person,   and   for   securing   to   the
individual what Judge Cooley calls the right “to be let
alone.”…numerous   mechanical   devices   threaten   to
make   good   the   prediction   that   “what   is   whispered   in
the closet shall be proclaimed from the house­tops.” 
30. However,   unlike   the   ‘property   centric’   origin   of   privacy
rights   in   England   and   under   the   Fourth   Amendment   in   the
Constitution   of   the   United   States   of   America,   in   India,   privacy
rights may be traced to the ‘right to life’ enshrined under Article
21   of   the   Constitution.   When   this   Court   expounded   on   the
meaning of “life” under Article 21, it did not restrict the same in a
pedantic   manner.   An   expanded   meaning   has   been   given   to   the
right   to   life   in   India,   which   accepts   that   “life”   does   not   refer   to
mere   animal   existence   but   encapsulates   a   certain   assured
quality.
31. It   is   in   this   context   that   we   must   contextualize   the   issues
that are being raised in this batch of petitions. We live in the era
of information revolution, where the entire lives of individuals are
2
 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis,  The Right to Privacy ,  H ARVARD  L AW  R EVIEW ,  Vol. 4 (5), 193 (Dec. 15, 
1890).
18

stored in the cloud or in a digital dossier. We must recognize that
while   technology   is   a   useful   tool   for   improving   the   lives   of   the
people,   at   the   same   time,   it   can   also   be   used   to   breach   that
sacred private space of an individual. 
32. Members of a civilized democratic society have a reasonable
expectation   of   privacy.   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.
This Court in  K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy­9J.) v. Union of India ,
(2017)   10   SCC   1,   has   recognized  that   the  right  to  privacy   is  as
sacrosanct   as   human   existence   and   is   inalienable   to   human
dignity and autonomy. This Court held that:
“320.   Privacy   is   a   constitutionally   protected   right
which emerges primarily from the guarantee of life
and   personal   liberty   in   Article   21   of   the
Constitution.   Elements   of   privacy   also   arise   in
varying  contexts  from  the  other  facets of   freedom  and
dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental
rights contained in Part III.
…
325.   Like   other   rights   which   form   part   of   the
fundamental   freedoms   protected   by   Part   III,   including
the   right   to   life   and   personal   liberty   under   Article   21,
privacy   is   not   an   absolute   right.   A   law   which
encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the
19

touchstone   of   permissible   restrictions   on
fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an
invasion   of   privacy   must   be   justified   on   the   basis
of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair,
just   and   reasonable.   The   law   must   also   be   valid
with   reference   to   the   encroachment   on   life   and
personal   liberty   under   Article   21.   An   invasion   of
life   or   personal   liberty   must   meet   the   threefold
requirement   of   (    i   )   legality,   which   postulates   the
existence   of   law;   (    ii    )   need,   defined   in   terms   of   a
legitimate   State   aim;   and   (    iii    )   proportionality
which ensures a rational nexus between the objects
and the means adopted to achieve them.”
( emphasis supplied )
33. Although   declared   to   be   inalienable,   the   right   to   privacy   of
course   cannot   be   said   to   be   an   absolute,   as   the   Indian
Constitution does not provide for such a right without reasonable
restrictions. 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. 
34.   In   K.S.   Puttaswamy   (Privacy­9J.)   ( supra ),   this   Court
considered the need to protect the privacy interests of individuals
while   furthering   legitimate   State   interests.   This   Court   therefore
directed   the   State   to   embark   upon   the   exercise   of   balancing   of
competing interests. This Court observed as follows:
“310.While   it   intervenes   to   protect   legitimate
20

State   interests,   the   State   must   nevertheless   put
into   place   a   robust   regime   that   ensures   the
fulfilment   of   a   threefold   requirement.   These   three
requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not
just informational privacy). They emanate from the
procedural   and   content­based   mandate   of   Article
21.   The first requirement  that  there must be a law  in
existence   to   justify   an   encroachment   on   privacy   is   an
express   requirement   of   Article   21.   For,  no   person   can
be   deprived   of   his   life   or   personal   liberty   except   in
accordance with the procedure established by law. The
existence   of   law   is   an   essential   requirement.   Second,
the   requirement   of   a   need,   in   terms   of   a   legitimate
State aim, ensures that the nature and content of the
law which imposes the restriction falls within the zone
of   reasonableness   mandated   by   Article   14,   which   is   a
guarantee   against   arbitrary   State   action.   The   pursuit
of a legitimate State aim ensures that the law does not
suffer   from   manifest   arbitrariness.   Legitimacy,   as   a
postulate,   involves   a   value   judgment.   Judicial   review
does   not   reappreciate   or   second   guess   the   value
judgment of the legislature but is for deciding whether
the   aim   which   is   sought   to   be   pursued   suffers   from
palpable   or   manifest   arbitrariness.   The   third
requirement   ensures   that   the   means   which   are
adopted   by   the   legislature   are   proportional   to   the
object   and   needs   sought   to   be   fulfilled   by   the   law.
Proportionality   is   an   essential   facet   of   the
guarantee against arbitrary State action because it
ensures   that   the   nature   and   quality   of   the
encroachment on the right is not disproportionate
to   the   purpose   of   the   law.   Hence,   the   threefold
requirement for a valid law arises out of the mutual
interdependence   between   the   fundamental
guarantees   against   arbitrariness   on   the   one   hand
and   the   protection   of   life   and   personal   liberty,   on
the   other.   The   right   to   privacy,   which   is   an
intrinsic   part   of   the   right   to   life   and   liberty,   and
the freedoms embodied in Part III is subject to the
21

same restraints which apply to those freedoms.”
( emphasis supplied )
35. The   right   to   privacy   is   directly   infringed   when   there   is
surveillance or spying done on an individual, either by the State
or   by   any   external   agency.   Ellen   Alderman   and   Caroline
Kennedy,   in   ‘Right   to   Privacy’, 3
  foresaw   this   threat   to   privacy   in
1995,   while   referring   to   governmental   eavesdropping   in   the
United States of America, in the following words:
“Perhaps   the   scariest   threat   to   privacy   comes   in   the
area   known   as   “informational   privacy”.     Information
about   all   of   us   is   now   collected   not   only   by   the   old
standbys, the IRS and FBI, but also by the MTB, MIB,
NCOA,   and   NCIC,   as   well   as   credit   bureaus,   credit
unions,   and   credit   card   companies.     We   now   have
cellular   phones,   which   are   different   from   cordless
phones,   which   are   different   from   what   we   used   to
think of as phones.  We worry about e­mail, voice mail,
and   junk   mail.     And   something   with   the   perky   name
Clipper   Chip   ­   developed   specifically   to   allow
governmental   eavesdropping   on   coded   electronic
communications   –   is   apparently   the   biggest   threat   of
all.”
36. Of course,  if done  by   the State, the  same  must  be  justified
on constitutional grounds. This Court is cognizant of the State’s
interest   to   ensure   that   life   and   liberty   is   preserved   and   must
balance   the   same.   For   instance,   in   today’s   world,   information
gathered   by   intelligence   agencies   through   surveillance   is
essential for the fight against violence and terror. To access this
3
 Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy,  T HE  R IGHT   TO  P RIVACY , 223 (1995).
22

information,   a   need   may   arise   to   interfere   with   the   right   to
privacy of an individual, provided it is carried out only when it is
absolutely necessary for protecting national security/interest and
is   proportional.   The   considerations   for   usage   of   such   alleged
technology, ought to be evidence based. In a democratic country
governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals
cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by
following   the   procedure   established   by   law   under   the
Constitution.
37. This   trade­off   between   the   right   to   privacy   of   an   individual
and the security interests of the State, has been recognized world
over   with   the   renowned   scholar   Daniel   Solove 4
  commenting   on
the same as follows:
“The   debate   between   privacy   and   security   has   been
framed   incorrectly,   with   the   trade­off   between   these
values   understood   as   an   all­or­nothing   proposition.
But protecting privacy need not be fatal to security
measures;   it   merely   demands   oversight   and
regulation.   We   can’t   progress   in   the   debate
between   privacy   and   security   because   the   debate
itself is flawed . 
The   law   suffers   from   related   problems.   It   seeks   to
balance privacy and security, but systematic problems
plague the way the balancing takes place…. 
4
 Daniel J. Solove,  N OTHING   TO  H IDE : T HE  F ALSE  T RADEOFF   BETWEEN  P RIVACY   AND  S ECURITY  
(2011).
23

Privacy   often   can   be   protected   without   undue   cost   to
security.   In   instances   when   adequate   compromises
can’t   be   achieved,   the   trade­off   can   be   made   in   a
manner   that   is   fair   to   both   sides.   We   can   reach   a
better balance between privacy and security. We must.
There is too much at stake to fail.”
( emphasis supplied )
38. Somewhat   allied   to   the   concerns   of   privacy,   is   the   freedom
of the press.  Certain observations made by this Court in the case
of   Indian   Express   Newspapers   (Bombay)   Private   Limited   v.
Union of India,   (1985) 1 SCC 641  may be extracted:
“25.   The   freedom   of   press,   as   one   of   the   members   of
the   Constituent   Assembly   said,   is   one   of   the   items
around   which   the   greatest   and   the   bitterest   of
constitutional   struggles   have   been   waged   in   all
countries  where  liberal   constitutions   prevail.  The   said
freedom   is   attained   at   considerable   sacrifice   and
suffering and ultimately it has come to be incorporated
in the various written constitutions…”
39. 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.  Such   a  scenario
might   result   in   self­censorship.   This   is   of   particular   concern
when it relates to the freedom of the press, which is an important
pillar of democracy. Such chilling effect on the freedom of speech
is   an   assault   on   the   vital   public­watchdog   role   of   the   press,
which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate
24

and   reliable   information.   Recently,   in   the   case   of   Anuradha
Bhasin   v.   Union   of   India ,   (2020)   3   SCC   637,   this   Court
highlighted   the   importance   of   freedom   of   the   press   in   a   modern
democracy in the following words:  
“159.   In   this   context,   one   possible   test   of   chilling
effect   is   comparative   harm.   In   this   framework,   the
Court   is   required   to   see   whether   the   impugned
restrictions,   due   to  their   broad­based   nature,   have
had   a   restrictive   effect   on   similarly   placed
individuals during the period.   It is the contention of
the   petitioner   that   she   was   not   able   to   publish   her
newspaper from 6­8­2019 to 11­10­2019. However, no
evidence   was   put   forth   to   establish   that   such   other
individuals   were   also   restricted   in   publishing
newspapers in the area. Without such evidence having
been   placed   on   record,   it   would   be   impossible   to
distinguish   a   legitimate   claim   of   chilling   effect   from   a
mere emotive argument for a self­serving  purpose. On
the   other   hand,   the   learned   Solicitor   General   has
submitted   that   there   were   other   newspapers   which
were running during the aforesaid time period. In view
of   these   facts,   and   considering   that   the   aforesaid
petitioner   has   now   resumed   publication,   we   do   not
deem   it   fit   to   indulge   more   in   the   issue   than   to   state
that   responsible   Governments   are   required   to   respect
the   freedom  of  the   press at   all  times.   Journalists   are
to   be   accommodated   in   reporting   and   there   is   no
justification   for   allowing   a   sword   of   Damocles   to
hang over the press indefinitely .”
( emphasis supplied )
40. An   important   and   necessary   corollary   of   such   a   right   is   to
ensure   the   protection   of   sources   of   information.   Protection   of
journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom
25

of   the   press.   Without   such   protection,   sources   may   be   deterred
from   assisting   the   press   in   informing   the   public   on   matters   of
public interest. 
41. Having   regard   to   the   importance   of   the   protection   of
journalistic   sources   for   press   freedom   in   a   democratic   society
and   the   potential   chilling   effect   that   snooping   techniques   may
have, this Court’s task in the present matter, where certain grave
allegations   of   infringement   of   the   rights   of   the   citizens   of   the
country   have   been   raised,   assumes   great   significance.   In   this
light,  this Court  is  compelled to  take  up the  cause  to  determine
the   truth   and   get   to   the   bottom   of   the   allegations   made   herein.
42. Initially, this Court was not satisfied with the Writ Petitions
that   were   filed   as   the   same   were   completely   reliant   only   upon
certain newspaper reports. This Court has generally attempted to
discourage Writ Petitions, particularly Public Interest Litigations,
which   are   based   entirely   on   newspaper   reports   without   any
additional steps taken by the Petitioner. In this respect, it may be
relevant   to   quote   the   observations   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Rohit Pandey v. Union of India , (2005) 13 SCC 702,  which are
as follows:
“ 1.   …The   only   basis   for   the   petitioner   coming   to
26

this   Court   are   two   newspaper   reports   dated
25­1­2004,   and   the   other   dated   12­2­2004.   This
petition   was   immediately   filed   on   16­2­2004   after   the
aforesaid second newspaper report appeared….
2.   We   expect   that   when   such   a   petition   is   filed   in
public interest and particularly by a member of the
legal   profession,   it   would   be   filed   with   all
seriousness   and   after   doing   the   necessary
homework and enquiry.   If the petitioner is so public­
spirited   at   such   a   young   age   as   is   so   professed,   the
least   one   would   expect   is   that   an   enquiry   would   be
made from the authorities concerned as to the nature
of   investigation   which   may   be   going   on   before   filing   a
petition   that   the   investigation   be   conducted   by   the
Central   Bureau   of   Investigation.   Admittedly,   no   such
measures   were   taken   by   the   petitioner.   There   is
nothing   in   the   petition   as   to   what,   in   fact,   prompted
the petitioner to approach this Court within two­three
days of the second publication dated 12­2­2004, in the
newspaper   Amar   Ujala.   Further,   the   State   of   Uttar
Pradesh   had   filed   its   affidavit   a   year   earlier   i.e.   on   7­
10­2004, placing on record the steps taken against the
accused   persons,   including   the   submission   of   the
charge­sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one
year   having   elapsed   after   the   filing   of   the   affidavit   by
the   Special   Secretary   to   the   Home   Department   of   the
Government   of   Uttar   Pradesh,   nothing   seems   to   have
been   done   by   the   petitioner.   The   petitioner   has   not
even   controverted   what   is   stated   in   the   affidavit.
Ordinarily,   we   would   have   dismissed   such   a
misconceived   petition   with   exemplary   costs   but
considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we
feel   that   the   ends   of   justice   would   be   met   and   the
necessary   message   conveyed  if   a  token   cost   of  rupees
one thousand is imposed on the petitioner.”
( emphasis supplied )
43. While   we   understand   that   the   allegations   made   in   these
petitions pertain to matters about which ordinary citizens would
27

not   have   information   except   for   the   investigating   reporting   done
by news agencies, looking to the quality of some of the petitions
filed,   we   are   constrained   to   observe   that   individuals   should   not
file half­baked petitions merely on a few newspaper reports. Such
an   exercise,   far   from   helping   the   cause   espoused   by   the
individual   filing   the   petition,   is   often   detrimental   to   the   cause
itself.   This   is   because   the   Court   will   not  have  proper  assistance
in   the   matter,   with   the   burden   to   even   determine   preliminary
facts   being   left   to   the   Court.   It   is   for   this   reason   that   trigger
happy filing of such petitions in Courts, and more particularly in
this   Court   which   is   to   be   the   final   adjudicatory   body   in   the
country,   needs   to   be   discouraged.   This   should   not   be   taken   to
mean that the news agencies are not trusted by the Court, but to
emphasize the role that each pillar of democracy occupies in the
polity. News agencies report facts and bring to light issues which
might otherwise not be publicly known. These may then become
the   basis   for   further   action   taken   by   an   active   and   concerned
civil   society,   as   well   as   for   any   subsequent   filings   made   in
Courts. But newspaper reports, in and of themselves, should not
in the ordinary course be taken to be ready­made pleadings that
may be filed in Court. 
28

44. That   said,   after   we   indicated   our   reservations   to   the
Petitioners regarding the lack of material, various other petitions
have   been   filed   in   Court,   including   by   individuals   who   were
purportedly victims of the alleged Pegasus spyware attack. These
subsequently   filed   petitions,   as   well   as   additional   documents
filed   by   others,   have   brought   on   record   certain   materials   that
cannot   be   brushed   aside,   such   as   the   reports   of   reputed
organizations   like   Citizen   Lab   and   affidavits   of   experts.
Additionally,   the   sheer   volume   of   cross­referenced   and   cross­
verified reports from various reputable news organizations across
the   world   along   with   the   reactions   of   foreign   governments   and
legal   institutions   also   moved   us   to   consider   that   this   is   a   case
where the jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised. Of course,
the   learned   Solicitor   General   suggested   that   many   of   these
reports   are   motivated   and   self­serving.   However,   such   an
omnibus   oral   allegation   is   not   sufficient   to   desist   from
interference.
45. It   is   for   this   reason   that   this   Court   issued   notice   to   the
Respondent­Union   of   India   and   sought   information   from   them.
We would like to re­emphasize what is already apparent from the
record of proceedings. This Court gave ample opportunity  to the
29

Respondent­Union   of   India   to   clarify   its   stand   regarding   the
allegations raised, and to provide information to assist the Court
regarding the various actions taken by it over the past two years,
since the first disclosed alleged Pegasus spyware attack. We had
made it clear to the learned Solicitor General on many occasions
that we would not push the Respondent­Union of India to provide
any information that may affect the national security concerns of
the   country.   However,   despite   the   repeated   assurances   and
opportunities   given,   ultimately   the   Respondent­Union   of   India
has   placed   on   record   what   they   call   a   “limited   affidavit”,   which
does not shed any light on their stand or provide any clarity as to
the facts of the matter at hand. If the Respondent­Union of India
had   made   their   stand   clear   it   would   have   been   a   different
situation, and the burden on us would have been different. 
46. Such   a  course  of   action  taken   by   the   Respondent­Union   of
India,   especially   in   proceedings   of   the   present   nature   which
touches   upon   the   fundamental   rights   of   the   citizens   of   the
country,   cannot   be   accepted.   As   held   by   this   Court   in   Ram
Jethmalani   v.   Union   of   India,   (2011)   8   SCC   1 ,   the
Respondent­Union   of   India   should   not   take   an   adversarial
position   when   the   fundamental   rights   of   citizens   are   at   threat.
30

This Court in that case observed as follows:
“75.  In order that the right guaranteed by clause (1) of
Article   32   be   meaningful,   and   particularly   because
such   petitions   seek   the   protection   of   fundamental
rights,   it   is   imperative   that   in   such   proceedings   the
petitioners   are   not   denied   the   information   necessary
for them to properly articulate the case and be heard,
especially where such information is in the possession
of   the   State.   To   deny   access   to   such   information,
without   citing   any   constitutional   principle   or
enumerated   grounds   of   constitutional   prohibition,
would   be   to   thwart   the   right   granted   by   clause   (1)   of
Article 32.
76.  Further, inasmuch as, by history and tradition of
common   law,   judicial   proceedings   are   substantively,
though   not   necessarily   fully,   adversarial,   both
parties   bear   the   responsibility   of   placing   all   the
relevant   information,   analyses,   and   facts   before
this   Court   as   completely   as   possible.   In   most
situations,   it   is   the   State   which   may   have   more
comprehensive   information   that   is   relevant   to   the
matters at hand in such proceedings...
77.   It  is  necessary   for  us   to   note   that   the   burden   of
asserting,   and   proving,   by   relevant   evidence   a   claim
in   judicial   proceedings   would   ordinarily   be   placed
upon   the   proponent   of   such   a   claim;   however,   the
burden   of   protection   of   fundamental   rights   is
primarily   the   duty   of   the   State.   Consequently,
unless   constitutional   grounds   exist,   the   State
may   not   act   in   a   manner   that   hinders   this   Court
from   rendering   complete   justice   in   such
proceedings .   Withholding   of   information   from   the
petitioners, or seeking to cast the relevant events and
facts in a light favourable to the State in the context
of   the   proceedings,   even   though   ultimately
detrimental   to   the   essential   task   of   protecting
fundamental   rights,   would   be   destructive   to   the
31

guarantee in clause (1) of Article 32…
78 .   In   the   task   of   upholding   of   fundamental
rights,   the   State   cannot   be   an   adversary.   The
State   has   the   duty,   generally,   to   reveal   all   the
facts   and   information   in   its   possession   to   the
Court,   and   also   provide   the   same   to   the
petitioners.  This is so, because the petitioners would
also   then   be   enabled   to   bring   to   light   facts   and   the
law   that   may   be   relevant   for   the   Court   in   rendering
its   decision.   In   proceedings   such   as   those   under
Article 32, both the petitioner  and the State, have to
necessarily   be   the   eyes   and   ears   of   the   Court.
Blinding   the   petitioner   would   substantially   detract
from   the   integrity  of   the   process  of   judicial  decision­
making   in   Article   32   proceedings,   especially   where
the issue is of upholding of fundamental rights. ”
( emphasis supplied )
47. This   free   flow   of   information   from   the   Petitioners   and   the
State, in a writ proceeding before the Court, is an important step
towards   Governmental   transparency   and   openness,   which   are
celebrated   values   under   our   Constitution,   as   recognized   by   this
Court recently in the  Anuradha Bhasin  ( supra )  judgment .
48. Of course, there may be circumstances where the State has
a constitutionally defensible reason for denying access to certain
information or divulging certain information as was recognized by
this   Court   in   the   Ram   Jethmalani   ( supra )   case,   as   extracted
below:
“80.   Withholding   of   information   from   the
32

petitioners by the State , thereby  constraining their
freedom   of   speech   and   expression   before   this   Court,
may   be   premised   only   on   the   exceptions   carved
out, in clause (2) of Article 19, “in the interests of
the   sovereignty   and   integrity   of   India,   the
security   of   the   State,   friendly   relations   with
foreign   States,   public   order,   decency   or   morality,
or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement   to   an   offence”   or   by   law   that
demarcate   exceptions,   provided   that   such   a   law
comports   with   the   enumerated   grounds   in   clause
(2)   of   Article   19 ,   or   that   may   be   provided   for
elsewhere in the Constitution.”
( emphasis supplied )
49. It is on the strength of the above exception carved out that
the   Respondent­Union   of   India   has   justified   its   non­submission
of a detailed counter affidavit,  viz. , by citing security concerns. It
is a settled position of law that in matters pertaining to national
security,   the   scope   of   judicial   review   is   limited.   However,   this
does   not   mean   that   the   State   gets   a   free   pass   every   time   the
spectre   of   “national   security”   is   raised.   National   security   cannot
be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its
mere mentioning. Although this Court should be circumspect in
encroaching   upon   the   domain   of   national   security,   no   omnibus
prohibition can be called for against judicial review.
50. Of   course,   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   may   decline   to
provide   information   when   constitutional   considerations   exist,
33

such   as   those   pertaining   to   the   security   of   the   State,   or   when
there is a specific immunity under a specific statute. However, it
is   incumbent   on   the   State   to   not   only   specifically   plead   such
constitutional concern or statutory immunity but they must also
prove and justify the same in Court on affidavit. The Respondent­
Union of India must necessarily plead and prove the facts which
indicate that the information sought must be kept secret as their
divulgence   would   affect   national   security   concerns.   They   must
justify   the   stand   that   they   take   before   a   Court.   The   mere
invocation   of   national   security   by   the   State   does   not   render   the
Court a mute spectator. 
51. In   the   present   matter,   as   we   have   indicated   above,   the
Petitioners   have   placed   on   record   certain   material   that   prima
facie   merits   consideration   by   this   Court.   There   has   been   no
specific   denial   of   any   of   the   facts   averred   by   the   Petitioners   by
the Respondent­Union of India. There has only been an omnibus
and   vague   denial   in   the   “limited   affidavit”   filed   by   the
Respondent­Union   of   India,   which   cannot   be   sufficient.   In   such
circumstances,   we   have   no   option   but   to   accept   the   prima   facie
case   made   out   by   the   Petitioners   to   examine   the   allegations
made. 
34

52. Different   forms   of   surveillance   and   data   gathering   by
intelligence   agencies   to   fight   terrorism,   crime   and   corruption   in
national   interest   and/or   for   national   security,   are   accepted
norms all over the world.  The Petitioners do not contend that the
State   should   not   resort   to   surveillance/collection   of   data   in
matters   of   national   security.   The   complaint   of   the   Petitioners   is
about  the   misuse   or   likely   misuse  of   spyware  in   violation   of  the
right   to   privacy   of   citizens.   The   Respondent­Union   of   India   also
does   not   contend   that   its   agencies   can   resort   to
surveillance/collection   of   data   relating   to   its   citizens   where
national   security   and   national   interest   are   not   involved.   The
apprehension   of   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   is   that   any
inquiry in this behalf should not jeopardize national security and
the steps taken by it to protect national security. There is thus a
broad   consensus   that   unauthorized   surveillance/accessing   of
stored   data   from   the   phones   and   other   devices   of   citizens   for
reasons   other   than   nation’s   security   would   be   illegal,
objectionable and a matter of concern.
53. The only question that remains then is what the appropriate
remedy   in   this  case  would  be.  Mr.   Shyam   Divan,   learned   senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition (C)
35

No.   849   of   2021   sought   an   interim   order   from   this   Court
directing   the   Cabinet   Secretary   to   put   certain   facts   on   an
affidavit.   On   the   other   hand,   most   of   the   other   senior   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   other   Writ   Petitioners   sought   an
independent   investigation   or   inquiry   into   the   allegations
pertaining to the use of Pegasus software either by constituting a
Special   Investigation   Team   headed   by   a   retired   judge   or   by   a
Judges’ Committee. 
54. We   are   of   the   opinion   that   in   the   circumstances   of   the
present   case,   when   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   has   already
been   given   multiple   opportunities   to   file   an   affidavit   on   record,
and   looking   to  the   conduct   of   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   in
not   placing   on   record   any   facts   through   their   reliance   on   the
“national   security”   defense,   no     useful   purpose   would   be   served
by issuing directions of the nature sought by Mr. Shyam Divan,
apart from causing a further delay in proceedings. 
55. Instead,   we   are   inclined   to   pass   an   order   appointing   an
Expert Committee whose functioning will be overseen by a retired
Judge   of   the   Supreme   Court.   Such   a   course   of   action   has   been
adopted   by   this   Court   in   various   other   circumstances   when   the
Court   found   it   fit   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   to
36

probe   the   truth   or   falsity   of   certain   allegations,   taking   into
account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature
of   the   large­scale   violation   of   the   fundamental   rights   of   the
citizens   of   the   country   [ See   Ram   Jethmalani   ( supra );   Extra­
Judicial   Execution   Victim   Families   Association   v.   Union   of
India ,   (2013)   2   SCC   493;   G.S.   Mani   v.   Union   of   India,   order
dated 12.12.2019 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 348 of 2019]. 
56. The compelling circumstances that have weighed with us to
pass such an order are as follows:
i. Right   to   privacy   and   freedom   of   speech   are   alleged   to   be
impacted, which needs to be examined.
ii. The   entire   citizenry   is   affected   by   such   allegations   due   to
the potential chilling effect.
iii. No   clear   stand   taken   by   the   Respondent­Union   of   India
regarding actions taken by it.
iv. Seriousness   accorded   to   the   allegations   by   foreign
countries and involvement of foreign parties.
v. Possibility   that   some   foreign   authority,   agency   or   private
entity  is involved in placing  citizens of this country  under
surveillance.
vi. Allegations that the Union or State Governments are party
37

to the rights’ deprivations of the citizens. 
vii. Limitation   under   writ   jurisdiction   to   delve   into   factual
aspects.   For   instance,   even   the   question   of   usage   of   the
technology   on   citizens,   which   is   the   jurisdictional   fact,   is
disputed and requires further factual examination.
57. It   is   for   reason   (vi)   above   that   we   decline   the   Respondent­
Union   of   India’s   plea   to   allow   them   to   appoint   an   Expert
Committee   for   the   purposes   of   investigating   the   allegations,   as
such a course of action would violate the settled judicial principle
against bias,   i.e. , that ‘ justice must not only be done, but also be
seen to be done’ . 
58. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to state that in this
world   of   conflicts,   it   was   an   extremely   uphill   task   to   find   and
select experts who are free from prejudices, are independent and
competent.   Rather   than   relying   upon   any   Government   agencies
or any, we have constituted the Committee and shortlisted expert
members   based   on   biodatas   and   information   collected
independently.   Some   of   the   candidates   politely   declined   this
assignment, while others had some conflict of interest. With our
best   intentions   and   efforts,   we   have   shortlisted   and   chosen   the
most   renowned   experts   available   to   be   a   part   of   the   Committee.
38

Additionally,   we   have   also   left   it   to   the   discretion   of   the   learned
overseeing judge to take assistance from any expert, if necessary,
to   ensure   absolute   transparency   and   efficiency,   as   directed   in
paragraph 62(3).
59. With   the   above   observations,   we   constitute   a   Technical
Committee   comprising   of   three   members,   including   those   who
are   experts   in   cyber   security,   digital   forensics,   networks   and
hardware,   whose   functioning   will   be   overseen   by   Justice   R.V.
Raveendran, former Judge, Supreme Court of India. The learned
overseeing Judge will be assisted in this task by: 
i. Mr.   Alok   Joshi,   former   IPS   officer   (1976   batch)   who
has immense and diverse investigative experience and
technical   knowledge.   He   has   worked   as   the   Joint
Director,   Intelligence   Bureau,   the   Secretary(R),
Research   and   Analysis   Wing   and   Chairman,   National
Technical Research Organisation. 
ii. Dr.   Sundeep   Oberoi,   Chairman,   ISO/IEC   JTC1   SC7
(International   Organisation   of   Standardisation/
International   Electro­Technical   Commission/Joint
Technical   Committee),   a   sub­committee   which
develops   and   facilitates   standards   within   the   field   of
39

software   products   and   systems.   Dr.   Oberoi   is   also   a
part of the Advisory Board of Cyber Security Education
and   Research   Centre   at   Indraprastha   Institute   of
Information   Technology,   Delhi.   He   is   globally
recognized as a cyber security expert.
60. The   three   members   Technical   Committee   [ hereinafter
referred to as the  “Committee” ] shall comprise of:
i. Dr.   Naveen   Kumar   Chaudhary,   Professor   (Cyber
Security   and   Digital   Forensics)   and   Dean,   National
Forensic   Sciences   University,   Gandhinagar,   Gujarat.
Dr. Chaudhary has over two decades of experience as
an   academician,   cyber   security   enabler   and   cyber
security expert. He specializes in cyber security policy,
network   vulnerability   assessment   and   penetration
testing. 
ii. Dr.   Prabaharan   P.,   Professor   (School   of   Engineering),
Amrita   Vishwa   Vidyapeetham,   Amritapuri,   Kerala.   He
has   two   decades   of   experience   in   computer   science
and   security   areas.   His   areas   of   interest   are   malware
detection,   critical   infrastructural   security,   complex
binary   analysis,   AI   and   machine   learning.   He   has
40

many publications in reputed journals.
iii. Dr.   Ashwin   Anil   Gumaste,   Institute   Chair   Associate
Professor  (Computer  Science and  Engineering), Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra. He has
been   granted   20   US   patents   and   has   published   over
150 papers and authored 3 books in his field. He has
received several National awards including the Vikram
Sarabhai   Research   Award   (2012)   and   Shanti   Swarup
Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology (2018). He
has   also   held   the   position   of   Visiting   Scientist   at   the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
61. The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:
A. To enquire, investigate and determine: 
i. Whether   the   Pegasus   suite   of   spyware   was   used   on
phones or other devices of the citizens of India to access
stored   data,   eavesdrop   on   conversations,   intercept
information and/or for any other purposes not explicitly
stated herein?
ii. The   details   of   the   victims   and/or   persons   affected   by
such a spyware attack.
41

iii. What   steps/actions   have   been   taken   by   the
Respondent­Union of India after reports were published
in   the   year   2019   about   hacking   of   WhatsApp   accounts
of Indian citizens, using  the Pegasus suite of spyware.  
iv. Whether any Pegasus suite of spyware was acquired by
the   Respondent­Union   of   India,   or   any   State
Government,   or   any   central   or   state   agency   for   use
against the citizens of India? 
v. If any governmental agency has used the Pegasus suite
of   spyware   on   the   citizens   of   this   country,   under   what
law,   rule,   guideline,   protocol   or   lawful   procedure   was
such deployment made?
vi. If any domestic entity/person has used the spyware on
the   citizens   of   this   country,   then   is   such   a   use
authorised?
vii. Any   other   matter   or   aspect   which   may   be   connected,
ancillary   or   incidental   to   the   above   terms   of   reference,
which   the   Committee   may   deem   fit   and   proper   to
investigate.
B. To make recommendations: 
i. Regarding   enactment   or   amendment   to   existing   law
and   procedures   surrounding   surveillance   and   for
42

securing improved right to privacy.
ii. Regarding enhancing  and improving the cyber security
of the nation and its assets. 
iii. To   ensure   prevention   of   invasion   of   citizens’   right   to
privacy,   otherwise   than   in   accordance   with   law,   by
State   and/or   non­State   entities   through   such
spywares.
iv. Regarding   the   establishment   of   a   mechanism   for
citizens   to   raise   grievances   on   suspicion   of   illegal
surveillance of their devices.
v. Regarding   the   setting   up   of   a   well­equipped
independent   premier   agency   to   investigate   cyber
security   vulnerabilities,   for   threat   assessment   relating
to   cyberattacks   and   to   investigate   instances   of
cyberattacks in the country.
vi. Regarding   any   ad­hoc   arrangement   that   may   be   made
by this Court as an interim measure for the protection
of   citizen’s   rights,   pending   filling   up   of   lacunae   by   the
Parliament.
vii. On any other ancillary matter that the Committee may
deem fit and proper.
43

62. The Procedure of the Committee shall be as follows:
(1) The Committee constituted by this Order is authorised to ­
(a) devise its own procedure to effectively implement and
answer the Terms of Reference;
(b) hold such enquiry or investigation as it deems fit;and
(c) take statements of any person in connection with the
enquiry   and   call   for   the   records   of   any   authority   or
individual.
(2)  Justice R. V. Raveendran, former Judge, Supreme Court of
India   will   oversee   the   functioning   of   the   Committee   with
respect   to   the   methodology   to   be   adopted,   procedure   to   be
followed,   enquiry   and   investigation   that   is   carried   out   and
preparation of the report.
(3) The   learned   overseeing   Judge   is   at   liberty   to   take   the
assistance of any serving or retired officer(s), legal expert(s)
or technical expert(s) in discharge of his functions.
(4) We   request   the   learned   overseeing   Judge   to   fix   the
honorarium   of   the   members   of   the   Committee   in
consultation   with   them,   which   shall   be   paid   by   the
Respondent­Union of India immediately.
44

(5) The   Respondent­Union   of   India   and   all   the   State
Governments,   as   well   as   agencies/authorities   under   them,
are   directed   to   extend   full   facilities,   including   providing
support   with   respect   to   infrastructure   needs,   manpower,
finances,   or   any   other   matter   as   may   be   required   by   the
Committee or the overseeing former Judge to effectively and
expeditiously   carry   out   the   task   assigned   to   them   by   this
Court.
(6) Mr.   Virender   Kumar   Bansal,   Officer   on   Special   Duty/
Registrar, Supreme Court of India, is directed to coordinate
between   the   Committee,   the   learned   overseeing   Judge   and
the Central/State Governments to facilitate communication
and   ensure   smooth   functioning   and   expeditious   response
to,   and   implementation   of,   requests   made   by   the
Committee, the learned overseeing Judge or those named in
paragraph 59 above, tasked to assist him.
63. The   Committee   is   requested   to   prepare   the   report   after   a
thorough inquiry and place it before this Court, expeditiously.
 
45

64. List the matter after 8 weeks. 
     
...........................................CJI.
                (N.V. RAMANA)
 ..............................................J.
   (SURYA KANT)
..............................................J.
  (HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 27, 2021
46