Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (Pegasus Surveillance)
Bench: Division Bench — 3 Judges (N.V. Ramana CJ, Surya Kant & Hima Kohli JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
Following international investigative reports in 2021 (the Pegasus Project) that alleged the Pegasus spyware — developed by Israeli firm NSO Group — had been used to surveil the phones of Indian politicians, journalists, activists, and judges, several writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court seeking an inquiry into the use of Pegasus spyware by Indian government agencies. The Union of India declined to disclose whether it had used Pegasus, citing national security. The Supreme Court appointed a technical expert committee to examine the phones of affected persons and investigate the use of Pegasus.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Does the use of military-grade spyware like Pegasus against citizens — including journalists and judges — violate the right to privacy under Article 21?
- 2Can the government claim national security to shield itself from any judicial inquiry into surveillance operations?
- 3What is the legal framework governing surveillance by state agencies in India, and does Pegasus use comply with it?
The Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy under Article 21 (as established in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)) is a fundamental right that protects citizens from arbitrary state surveillance. The national security plea by the government — invoked to shield itself from any disclosure — cannot be a blanket defence that forecloses all judicial oversight. The Court appointed a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) under former Supreme Court judge R.V. Raveendran to examine the phones of complainants and investigate whether Pegasus was used. The TEC submitted its report to the Court. The Court held that the government's refusal to file an affidavit disclosing whether it used Pegasus was unacceptable — the state must be accountable for its surveillance activities.
Key Principles Laid Down
RIGHT TO PRIVACY — SURVIVES NATIONAL SECURITY PLEA: The fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 is not automatically overridden by a national security claim. The government cannot refuse all judicial oversight of surveillance operations merely by invoking national security. Courts retain the power to examine surveillance claims and appoint expert committees.
JOURNALIST AND ACTIVIST SURVEILLANCE — CHILLING EFFECT: The surveillance of journalists and activists using military-grade spyware like Pegasus has a severe chilling effect on freedom of speech and press — rights protected under Article 19(1)(a). Such surveillance, if unauthorised or disproportionate, violates the Constitution.
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SURVEILLANCE: The state must be accountable for its use of surveillance technology. The refusal to file an affidavit disclosing whether a particular technology was used — even with redactions for national security — is not acceptable when fundamental rights are at stake.
TECHNICAL EXPERT COMMITTEE: The Court's appointment of a TEC (Technical Expert Committee) to independently examine phones and investigate Pegasus use is significant — it established that courts can order independent technical investigations into state surveillance, without relying solely on government disclosure.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR SURVEILLANCE — GAPS: The case exposed significant gaps in India's legal framework for state surveillance — the existing framework under Section 69 IT Act and Section 5(2) Telegraph Act does not adequately address military-grade spyware. The Court emphasised the need for a comprehensive surveillance law.
Impact on Indian Law
The Pegasus Case (2022) is the most significant judicial intervention on state surveillance in India. It confirmed that the right to privacy extends to digital communications and that national security cannot be a blanket shield against judicial scrutiny. The TEC report (partially disclosed) found that the Union of India was uncooperative and could not be certified as having complied. The case has driven advocacy for a comprehensive surveillance law in India and is cited in all discussions of digital rights and state accountability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in the Pegasus surveillance case?
In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy under Article 21 protects citizens from arbitrary state surveillance, and that the government cannot shield itself from all judicial oversight by invoking national security. The Court appointed a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) to independently investigate whether Pegasus spyware was used on complainants' phones. The government's refusal to disclose whether it used Pegasus was held to be unacceptable. The TEC found the government uncooperative. The case exposed major gaps in India's surveillance law framework.