Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, listed for hearing on 29 April a batch of petitions seeking probe into the alleged use of spy software Pegasus by government(s) to snoop into the phones of politicians, activists and journalists.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh could not hear the matter today, keeping in view the fact that a three-judge bench hearing was already scheduled.

Appearing for petitioners, Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan asked the court to release the committee reports that are kept in sealed cover in the present case, saying that urgent directions are required in this regard. However, Justice Surya Kant informed the petitioners that the matter could not be taken up today due to a paucity of time.

Court had previously listed the matter for hearing on April 22.

The present case was last heard elaborately in August 2022. The Supreme Court, on 25 August 2022 referred to the report submitted by the Committee appointed by the top court and said that the committee found no definitive proof to suggest that Pegasus malware had been installed in the 29 devices voluntarily handed over.

A bench of the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli stated that the report had been received in different parts which include report of technical committee, report of overseeing judge, report on responses received by technical committees, information about malware which could create security issues & possibility of criminals getting access for misuse.

The bench also noted that one part of the oversight committee report laid down aspects about the protection of citizens, accountability, redressal & futuristic action, etc.

CJI Ramana said that in 5 out of 29 phones, the report suggested that malware (if any) found in the phones did not necessarily suggest the presence of Pegasus malware, as it could also be due to “poor hygiene”. “We intend to look over what issues we can release in the public domain,” the CJI-led bench had added.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, had submitted that though he understands security issues, a redacted report ought to be made available to people and especially those who had given their phones to the committee suspecting Malware.

Additionally, another Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that since her client had handed over their phone, it was imperative that they know what was the malware infection in light of the Pegasus report.

The bench, while refusing to comment on the issue informed the counsel that the Central Government had taken the same stand before the committee as it did before the bench which is of non-disclosure about whether the software is used, if at all or not, in any capacity whatsoever.

On the issue of whether the report should be released in the public domain, the bench stated that it would have to look into it as some persons who handed over phones did not want the report in the public domain.

Petition

The batch of petitions had sought a court-monitored probe by a Special Investigation Team into the reports of alleged snooping using Israeli spyware Pegasus.

Advocate Sharma mentioned in his plea that “the Pegasus scandal is a matter of grave concern and a serious attack upon Indian democracy, judiciary, and country security. The widespread and unaccountable use of surveillance is morally disfiguring.”

Earlier, the Supreme Court had appointed a committee headed by Justice RV Raveendran (Retired SC Judge), while rejecting the plea of the Union of India to allow them to appoint an Expert Committee for the purposes of investigating the allegations.

On August 16, 2021, the Centre had denied all allegations stating that the petitions are based on “conjectures and surmises or on other unsubstantiated media reports or uncorroborated material”. It has been added that in order to “dispel false narratives by certain vested interests,” the Union of India will constitute a Committee of Experts, which will go into all aspects of the issue.

Later, Refusing to file an affidavit on the specific use of Pegasus spyware software against civil society members and journalists, the Centre told the Supreme Court through Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta that, it had "filed an affidavit stating that in view of prevailing statutes, we are in compliance" and that an inquiry committee would be set up to look into the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also told the court that in the interest of national security, the matter could not be made a part of "public discourse".

The overseeing Judge was assisted in this task by Mr. Alok Joshi, former IPS officer (1976 batch) & Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, Sub Committee in (International Organisation of Standardisation/International Electro-Technical Commission/JointTechnical Committee).

Background

Pegasus is spyware developed by the Israeli cyber arms firm NSO Group that can be covertly installed on mobile phones (and other devices) running most versions of iOS and Android.

The plea had added, “Privacy is not about the wish to hide, as is often asserted. It is about having a space of one’s own where our thoughts and being are not the instruments of someone else’s purposes.”

“Pegasus is not just a surveillance tool. It is a cyber-weapon being unleashed on the Indian polity. Even if authorised (which is doubtful), the use of Pegasus poses a national security risk.” – stated plea.

Case Title: ML Sharma v. PM | N. Ram v. UOI | Editors Guild of India v. UOI