Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) found itself in the news when it decided to assign an expert committee, overseen by a retired apex court judge, Justice Raveendran, for the Pegasus case. The Union Government stands accused of using spyware for surveillance purposes on private individuals.
Judicial Principle Against Bias
The court dismissed the government’s request to start its own investigation into the matter. This decision was based on the concept that not only should justice be served, but it should also appear to be served. The government establishing its own investigative unit would potentially violate this principle against bias.
Formation of Expert Committee
The government’s lack of concrete action in response to the charges leveled by the petitioners prompted the court to form a panel of experts, led by former SC judge Justice R V Raveendran.
Recommendation Terms
The court has further asked the Raveendran committee to suggest a legal and policy framework to protect citizens against surveillance and bolster the nation’s cybersecurity. It has outlined seven terms of reference for the committee, which are essentially facts need to be established to make a decision.
Issues Tackled by the Supreme Court
Right to Privacy: The SC reaffirmed that an individual’s privacy is as inviolable as their existence and is integral to human dignity and freedom. This right was declared as part of fundamental rights by the SC in the K S Puttaswamy case, 2017. Any snooping or surveillance conducted on an individual by the state or any external agency infringes upon their right to privacy.
Surveillance Impact on Free Speech: The court has drawn a link between surveillance and self-censorship. The knowledge of being potentially spied on leads to self-censorship and potentially a chilling effect, where press freedom is endangered, undermining the media’s ability to provide reliable and legitimate information.
National Security as a Ground to Block Citizen’s Rights: The court has stated that the state cannot claim national security as an excuse to curb citizens’ rights. This means that no blanket prohibition can be called for against judicial review if it pertains to national security. Any violation of rights by the state, even in national interest, must follow established legal procedures.
Way Forward
Judicial Role: The order serves as a bold reaffirmation of the SC’s responsibilities as the protector of individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. However, the true spirit of the court’s order will be put to the test by how Justice Raveendran’s panel addresses the issues at hand.
Legislative Role: The situation also underscores the need to hasten the enactment of the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019.
Executive Role: Lastly, it is also incumbent upon the executive branch to desist from any arbitrary use of power.
