[Pegasus Snoopgate] "Why the delay; why no police complaints:" Five observations by Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday heard nine petitions seeking probe into the Pegasus Snoopgate [Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prime Minister (Narendra Damodardas Modi) and Ors]..The hearing before the Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant was unusually long for a case coming up for admission. The Court eventually did not issue notice in the matter but asked the petitioners to serve copy of the petitions on the Central government. It will continue hearing the matter on Tuesday. .[Pegasus Snoopgate] These are the 9 petitions which Supreme Court will hear today.Below are five observations by the Court during the hearing of the case today. Why the delay?One of the first questions posed by the top court was regarding the delay in filing the petitions considering the fact that the Pegasus issue had been first reported in 2019. "What I read from writs, in May 2019 this came to light. I don't know (why) there was no serious concern about this issue. Why this issue has suddenly cropped after two years," the CJI asked."The extent of surveillance was not known to us. How do we file this petition. Today morning we found out that even registrars of this court has their numbers in snooping list. Their phones was also accessed. Some members of judiciary also named," Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for one of the petitioners, responded..Why have petitioners not filed police complaints?One of the major issues raised by the Court was why the petitioners have not exhausted their remedies under criminal law before moving the Court."They (petitioners) have not made efforts to file a criminal complaint. My question is if you know the phone is hacked then why wasn't an FIR lodged. That is the only question," CJI Ramana said.Senior Advocate Shyam Divan responded by saying that "this case requires an independent probe by a fact finding committee." Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi submitted that this is an issue that involves constitutionality and not only criminality..Even State governments could have employed PegasusDuring the hearing, CJI Ramana said that he had read reports that Pegasus is sold by the manufacturing firm, NSO only to vetted government. However, he also had this interesting take when he said that it could have been sold to State governments as well."It can be (purchased by) State governments also.""Govt of India needs to answer on that front. We cannot give all answers as we don't have access and only govt has," Sibal said..What about remedies under IT Act?The Court asked the petitioners whether there is scope for redressal of grievances under the Information Technology Act."What about Section 66A," asked the CJI."It was struck down," Senior Advocate Arvind Datar who was appearing for one of the petitioners replied."Section 66 is also there," the CJI observed.He also pointed at how the Court had, in the Anuradha Bhasin case on Jammu Kashmir, ordered government to periodically review internet blocking orders..Too many petitions; cannot proceed without hearing Central governmentThe Court eventually observed that since there are too many petitions, some of them in the nature of Public Interest Litigation petitions and some by parties who are affected, the Court will have to hear the Central government before proceeding further. "There are too many writ petitions. We will have to see. without Central government present in the hearing, the bench cannot proceed as of now," the Court said.It, therefore, refrained from issuing formal notice to the Central government instead asking parties to serve copies of the petitions on the government. The matter will be heard again on next Tuesday, August 10..Read live account of the hearing here.