[ad_1]
“India’s established protocols when it comes to surveillance. I am sure my friends in opposition who have been in government for years are very well aware of these protocols. Since they have governed the country they would also be aware that any form of illegal surveillance is not possible with the checks and balances with our laws and robust institutions. In India there is a well established procedure through which lawful interception of electronic communication is carried out for the purpose of national security particularly on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety by agencies at the centre and the state. The requests for these lawful interceptions for electronic communications are made as per the relevant rules as per section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and section 69 of the IT Act, 2000. Each case of interception is approved by the competent authority. These powers are also available to the competent authorities to the state governments,” he said. Vaishnaw claimed that India had established protocols when it comes to surveillance which were robust and had “stood the test of time”.“There is a very well established oversight mechanism in the form of a review committee headed by the Union Cabinet secretary. In case of a state government, this committee is headed by the Chief Secretary concerned. The law also provides an adjudication process for those people who are adversely affected by any such incident. The procedure therefore ensures that any interception, or monitoring is done as per due process of law,” underscored Vaishnaw.The IT minister had concluded that the publisher of the report had stated that it could not say if the numbers in the published list were under surveillance and additionally the company whose technology was allegedly used had denied these claims out rightly. “And the time tested processes in our country are well-established to ensure that unauthorised surveillance does not occur,” claimed Vaishnaw.What did the government inform SC on Pegasus?The Supreme Court had noted on September 13, 2021, that the government had refused to respond, through a “detailed” affidavit to allegations that it used Israel-based Pegasus software to spy on citizens. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli had stated that there cannot be any “beating around the bush” in the issue.The government said such an affidavit in the apex court would be too public and compromise national security. Even after reserving orders, the SC had informed solicitor General Tushar Mehta that he could mention the case if there were any second thoughts in the next few days before the pronouncement of the order.Instead, Mehta argued that a public discourse on whether a particular software was used or not would alert terrorists. He wanted the court to allow the government to form a committee of “domain experts” who would look into the allegations of snooping orchestrated against citizens, including journalists, activists, ministers, parliamentarians, among others. He assured the court that the committee members would have “no relationship” with the government and would place their report before the Supreme Court.The CJI had also questioned the practicality behind the government’s insistence on refusing to discuss the Pegasus allegations in open court, saying that even if an expert committee was formed, its work and the report would eventually become public.Then more than a month later, on October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court appointed an independent expert technical committee overseen by a former apex court judge, Justice RV Raveendran, to examine allegations that the government used an Israeli spyware, Pegasus, to snoop on its own citizens.Appointing the committee, CJI remarked, “There was no specific denial of the allegations by the Union of India. Had the Union of India made its stand clear, there would have been lesser burden on the court.”The three members of the technical committee would be Dr Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat; Dr Prabaharan P, Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala; and Dr Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra.The committee was formed in response to a petition filed by senior journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar, who had moved the Supreme Court for an independent probe headed by a former or sitting top court judge into the mass surveillance of over 142 potential “targets”.
[ad_2]
Source link
In Parliament, Modi govt says illegal surveillance not possible in India; in SC it refuses to respond
