CJI NV Ramana said, during the investigation, malware was found in 5 phones, but there is no evidence of it being pegagus, the government did not cooperate with the technical committee formed by the Supreme Court.
The Central Government did not cooperate with the Technical Committee set up by the Supreme Court to investigate allegations of the use of spy software by the Israeli company Pegasus in India. The Chief Justice (CJI) of the country (CJI) NV Ramana has made this serious comment about the Modi government’s stand in the context of Pegasus spy case investigation. He said this during the hearing of a case related to allegations of Pegasus spyware being secretly inserted into the mobile phones of opposition leaders, journalists and other important people. The matter is being heard in the Supreme Court by a three-judge bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli, apart from the CJI. The technical commission formed by the Supreme Court has submitted its report to the Supreme Court, in which the issue of the government’s lack of collaboration has also been highlighted.
Malware found on 5 mobile phones: CJI
Chief Justice Ramana said that of the 29 mobile phones examined by the technical committee set up by the Supreme Court, malware was found in five. But it cannot be said that the malware was only Pegasus. The Supreme Court itself has constituted a three-member technical commission to investigate the matter. The court had entrusted the responsibility of overseeing the work of this committee to retired Justice RV Raveendran. This commission has submitted its detailed report to the Supreme Court, only after studying that the CJI has made a serious comment about the attitude of the Modi government today. The CJI says that even with this commission, the government’s stand remained the same as seen in the Supreme Court.
Fundamentals of Adani group companies strong, but negative impact on rating due to leveraged buyout strategy: S&P
On the question of making the report of the technical commission public, the court said that some of the people who had given their phones to the inquiry commission, have requested not to make the report public, as they also contains some sensitive data. . The bank said that with this in mind, they must decide which parts of the report can be made public. Justice Surya Kant said on this issue, we will read the report in full and whatever part is deemed fit to be made public, it will be shared.
The government did not provide detailed information in the “limited affidavit.”
Twelve petitions alleging illegal espionage with Pegasus had been brought before the Supreme Court, demanding an impartial inquiry into the whole matter. The court said that the facts presented to the court by these petitioners are prima facie worthy of consideration. The limited affidavit or limited affidavit filed by the Central Government in response to these petitions had vehemently denied the allegations. The government did not present any specific or thematic rebuttal to the allegations made in the petitions. In these circumstances, we have no choice but to investigate the allegations made in the petitions as prima facie worthy of consideration.
Adani Green’s 2021% debt-to-equity ratio is worse than a single company in Asia!
The government had promised to inform the expert committee
In the affidavit filed by the Central Government during the hearing of this case, denying all the allegations against it, it was said that this matter is related to national security, so all this cannot be made public through written in the affidavit. On this, the court had said that in matters related to national security, the court’s power of judicial review is very limited. But that doesn’t mean the government should be given a free hand to do anything mentioning national security every time. The court should not interfere in the field of national security, but it also does not mean that just by taking the name of national security, the language of the court should be closed and it should remain a mere show.
On this, the government had said that if an expert committee is formed to investigate the matter, then it can provide more information. The government itself had also sought permission from the court to form an expert committee. But the court had rejected the government’s plea saying that to do so would be against the established principles of justice as it is not enough to do justice, one must also show that justice is being done. Following this, the same court constituted an expert committee of three technical experts and assigned the task of monitoring it to Justice Ravindran. Not only this, the court also appointed cyber security expert Dr Sandeep Oberoi and former IPS officer Alok Joshi to assist Justice Ravindran. But now President Ramana himself has to say that the government did not cooperate in the investigation even with this expert committee. From the reactions of the opposition, it is clear that this attitude of the government has opened the way for new questions to be raised on the whole issue.