This is a disturbing and problematic development. It risks burying any chance of accountability for the NSO/Pegasus spying scandal A brief thread on why. (1/n)
As we were informed when the scandal broke, the software is only sold to government or government affiliates. Going to the Supreme Court and asking the government to investigate itself through an agency under the Home Ministry (NIA) does not help anyone. (2/n)
Among those targeted by the surveillance are human rights defenders, many of whom are lawyers. They have the locus to decide how and where to pursue their legal remedies. When they're still determining their course of action, why is an unrelated third party rushing in? (3/n)
In recent times, the Supreme Court's own record in matters where facts are still to be established, has not been the strongest. There exist other institutions - including Parliamentary Committees - who have already stated that surveillance issues fall within their remit. A PIL +
+ short-circuits other forums of accountability, because it becomes easy for the government to say that as the matter is sub judice in court, there is no need to do anything as long as the court is dealing with it. (4/n)
Remedy for illegal surveillance is a civil rights issue (see point 2). Surveillance reform, on the other hand, is a complex policy issue with many moving parts. Vaguely worded petitions like this risk getting unrelated matters tied up in the SC, and effectively stalled. (5/n)
And lastly, this is a case that is just asking for the government to come to court and shout "national security" + "sealed cover", as they have been known to do at the drop of a hat. Once you go on that merry-go round, what follows - multiple adjournments, long dates, and +
+ daily fights not over the merits of the case, but on what can and cannot be in sealed covers, what can and cannot be argued, etc. (6/n)
In sum, the PIL route for a core civil rights issue is an invitation to delay, demur, and dilute.
(7/7)
(7/7)
