Response comes amid Opposition leaders moving privilege motion against IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw
Amid several Opposition leaders moving a privilege motion against Union Minister for IT and Telecom Ashwini Vaishnaw over the Pegasus row, the government has continued to stress that no ‘unauthorised snooping’ was done. However, it has not come out and denied the use or purchase of the Pegasus software.
When the controversy first broke out in July last year, Mr. Vaishnaw told Parliament that if the issue was looked at “through the prism of logic, it clearly emerges that there is no substance whatsoever behind this sensationalism.”
The response followed a news report over the alleged use of Israeli firm NSO Group’s Pegasus software to snoop on journalists, politicians and activists worldwide, including in India. The company had stated that its product was used “exclusively by government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight crime and terror.”
Explained | The operations of the Pegasus spyware
Making a statement on the issue in the Lok Sabha, Mr. Vaishnaw had argued that the “time-tested procedures of our country were well-established to ensure that unauthorised surveillance cannot occur,” and that the company whose technology was allegedly used had denied these claims outright.
However, there was no mention of whether or not India had bought the software.
MoD response
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), in August 2021, informed Parliament that it did not have any transaction with NSO Group. However, the response was specific to the MoD and did not exclude other Ministries or agencies that may have engaged with the firm.
In its six-page affidavit to the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), in August last year, had denied allegations of unauthorised snooping but, again, did not address the question of whether or not India had bought the Pegasus software.
“We hereby unequivocally deny any and all of the allegations made against the Respondents in the captioned petition and other connected petitions. A bare perusal makes it clear that the same are based on conjectures and surmises or on other unsubstantiated media reports or incomplete or uncorroborated material,” the Ministry affidavit has said.
More recently, in December 2021, in reply to a question, Minister of State for Electronics and IT Rajeev Chandrasekhar had stated that there was no proposal with the government “for banning any group named NSO Group.”
In his Parliament address, Mr. Vaishnaw, who assumed charge of his Ministry in July 2021, added that the appearance of the news report a day before the start of the Monsoon Session in Parliament could not be a coincidence and “appeared to be an attempt to malign the Indian democracy and its well-established institutions.”
The Minister said that the report itself clarified that the presence of a number in the list did not amount to snooping. “ …It is beyond dispute that the data has nothing to do with surveillance or with NSO. So, there can be no factual basis to suggest that a use of the data somehow equates to surveillance.”
“I highlight that the NSO has also said that the list of countries shown using Pegasus is incorrect and many countries mentioned are not even their clients. It also said that most of its clients are Western countries,” Mr. Vaishnaw said.
“Let us look at India’s established protocols when it comes to surveillance… any form of illegal surveillance is not possible with the checks and balances in our laws and our robust institutions,” he said.
He elaborated that in India there was a well-established procedure through which lawful interception of electronic communication was carried out for the purpose of national security, particularly at the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety, by agencies at the Centre and States.
Mr. Vaishnaw said the requests for these lawful interceptions of electronic communication were made as per the relevant rules under the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Each case of interception or monitoring was approved by the competent authority, he said, adding that there was a very-well established oversight mechanism in the form of a review committee headed by the Union Cabinet Secretary, and in the case of any State government, such cases were reviewed by a committee headed by the Chief Secretary concerned.