A war by a government against its own citizens.
Among all the things that were said in the Supreme Court today in the #Pegasus case, this from Shyam Divan really hit home. Especially since Mr. Divan is representing my uncle @JagdeepChhokar.
medianama.com/2021/08/223-pe…
1/
Among all the things that were said in the Supreme Court today in the #Pegasus case, this from Shyam Divan really hit home. Especially since Mr. Divan is representing my uncle @JagdeepChhokar.
medianama.com/2021/08/223-pe…
1/
2. Remember that apart from protectors of democracy like him, people targeted for surveillance in this case were Parliamentarians, Journalists & judges.
This is an attack from one pillar of democracy,the Executive,against the other three (Legislature, Media and Judiciary).
2/
This is an attack from one pillar of democracy,the Executive,against the other three (Legislature, Media and Judiciary).
2/
So, the Supreme Court must step in to protect the republic and democracy in this country.
We cannot trust the executive, or its agencies, to investigate itself. Perhaps we need the legislature - with more from the opposition, to investigate.
3/
We cannot trust the executive, or its agencies, to investigate itself. Perhaps we need the legislature - with more from the opposition, to investigate.
3/
3. Surveillance reform is critical for the functioning of a healthy democracy in India. It impacts the ability of the opposition to function. Our surveillance and intelligence agencies are accountable only to our bureaucracy and the politicians in power. This needs to change.
4/
4/
So what can we do? We need to draw from the Right to Privacy judgment.
4a. Surveillance must be back by law. We need a bill, and @ManishTewari in 2011 had proposed one. Needs an update.
4b. It must be necessary - for this "National security" threats need to be defined, and we
5/
4a. Surveillance must be back by law. We need a bill, and @ManishTewari in 2011 had proposed one. Needs an update.
4b. It must be necessary - for this "National security" threats need to be defined, and we
5/
cant have a one-size fits all definition of national security. There needs to be gradation of threat levels.
4c. There needs to be "proportionality". We need permissible actions to be based on these graded credible threat perception. Not political objectives. Not whims.
6/
4c. There needs to be "proportionality". We need permissible actions to be based on these graded credible threat perception. Not political objectives. Not whims.
6/
Not vendetta. Not elections. Not for criticism of electoral bonds. Not for trying to find sources of journalists. Not for trying to take control of the judiciary.
4d. Snooping orders need to get judicial approval based on these principles. Maybe like a FISA court?
7/
4d. Snooping orders need to get judicial approval based on these principles. Maybe like a FISA court?
7/
4e. There needs to be accountability of intelligence agencies. To a bipartisan political committee in Parliament. It should have more members of the opposition. Perhaps respected senior politicians, selected by Parliamentarians, independent of the executive.
8/
8/
4f. There should be a declassification period, with sensitive information redacted. Sunlight is a disinfectant. Perhaps transparency will bring in some accountability.
None of these solutions are perfect. What is clear is that we need to discuss Surveillance reform and
9/
None of these solutions are perfect. What is clear is that we need to discuss Surveillance reform and
9/
move forward from here. Will the government want to move forward? I don't think so. The judiciary needs to step in.
I don't think a govt investigation will help here. A judiciary appointed committee might take years. The issue will die down. Parliamentary probe might not.
I don't think a govt investigation will help here. A judiciary appointed committee might take years. The issue will die down. Parliamentary probe might not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
