Fresh plea urges SC to take note of NYT report on Pegasus
The application, submitted by advocate ML Sharma, has requested the court to order a probe into the 2017 defence deal with Israel.
A fresh plea has been filed in the Supreme Court, urging it to take note of a New York Times report on the alleged procurement of Israeli spyware Pegasus by the Union government in 2017.
The application by advocate ML Sharma has requested the court to order a probe into the 2017 defence deal with Israel.
Also Read | Best time to ask Israel for advanced Pegasus software: Chidambaram in dig at Modi
The New York Times report said India bought Pegasus spyware as part of a $2 billion defence deal with Israel in 2017. The media report sparked off a political controversy, with the opposition alleging that the government indulged in illegal snooping that amounted to “treason”.
Also Read | Pegasus inquiry: Take note of the NYT report
In his plea, Sharma said the 2017 deal was not approved by Parliament and, therefore, needs to be cancelled and money be recovered.
He urged the top court to issue suitable directions for registering a criminal case and to investigate the impugned Pegasus spyware purchase deal and alleged misuse of public funds in the interest of justice. Sharma’s plea is still to get a date of hearing.
Sharma is one of the petitioners in the batch of petitions on the Pegasus row, in which the court had in October 2021 set up a three-member expert committee, to be supervised by a retired judge of the court, RV Raveendran.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, had asked the panel to investigate whether the Centre or any state government acquired and used Israeli spyware Pegasus for surveillance of Indian citizens, and to also ascertain details of people targeted.
In its order passed on October 27, the court held the Union government cannot get “a free pass every time” by raising the spectre of “national security” when the issues concern the “potential chilling effect” on right to privacy and freedom of speech. It referred to the lack of a “specific denial” by the government and also its reluctance to file a detailed affidavit.
The court-appointed panel is yet to submit its report.
