“India’s supreme court has ordered an inquiry by an independent committee into the question of whether the government used Pegasus surveillance software for illegal spying.
The committee will comprise three cybersecurity experts and its work will be overseen by a retired supreme court judge. It will submit its report in two months.
In announcing their decision, the judges criticised the government’s refusal to divulge, on the grounds of national security, any details of what the software was used for and why. They said Delhi had offered “only a vague … denial of allegations”.
NSO has said its hacking software is only meant to be used by government clients to conduct legitimate investigations into serious crime.
The Indian government has said very little on the scandal, largely confining itself to accusing those making the allegations of trying to discredit the country and malign Indian democracy with their “anti-India agenda.
During earlier hearings, the government had offered to form its own panel of experts but this was rejected on Wednesday by the judges, who began the hearing by noting the “Orwellian concerns” about the misuse of technology.”
It's not really a NDA government default response, it is also the de facto default response for any alleged government mishap. It straight up dates back to the Emergency days.
No.
It's more prominent and widespread under the current government.
Multiple governments post Emergency did hold onto Parlimentary and democratic traditions and attempted to provide answers and held themselves accountable during such mishaps.
Its disingenuous to mark ANY current mishap by present gov to "Emergency days".
Still doesn’t absolve the current dispensation or make it any less callous. Topic at hand is current government’s attitude and not of previous governments.
It is the default response of the NDA government specifically, the last government on allegation of non-existent scam(proven in courts later), was open to all the proceedings which concluded after their government was out of office.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court formed a committee [1] to listen to the grievances of farmers relating to three farm laws introduced in 2020. That committee was ordered to submit their report in two months. However, it's been nine months now and that committee report [2] has neither been made public nor have the judges considered it in open court. Hopefully, this committee avoids the same fate.
“The state cannot get a free pass every time by raising national security concerns. No omnibus prohibition can be called against judicial review,” the judges said.
What an interesting concept.
I'm late to the game and not the downvoter, but I assume it's because you picked a relatively random, only vaguely related post to hang your comment off.
It may or may not get more traction or interest, but is likely to at least get better reaction, if you make it a top level comment or its own submission. Where/as it is, it just feels random and almost bot-spammy.
My 100 Croatian Lipa, for whatever it may be worth :)
You replied to a post that was not originally about what is going on right now in your town to talk about what is going on right now in your town. I understand that you really want to talk about it, but the proper way to do that would be to make a top-level submission about what is going on in your town right now.
The BJP government was investigating its political enemies with the intent of subverting democracy and getting absolute and authoritarian control over India.
The Judiciary is protecting the constitution and its principles.
The BJP government openly supports terrorists [1][2] and tries to defame the principles on which the country is based on.
>The Indian government is democratically elected
The BJP government is trying to destroy those very democratic principles. Spying on citizens and journalists and supporting terrorism are just few of the examples.
The NSDAP was also democratically elected in 1933. [3]
BJP government was misusing this power to spy on its political opponents which is a clear misuse of power and a subversion of the democratic principles.
That's rather tragic. The judiciary can be reigned in one way or the other by the legislature. Ideally, the country should have a strong executive (like the POTUS) who is accountable to the people instead of the legislature.
Don't know why you were downvoted. That is how separation of powers usually work.
That judges aren't also elected is sometimes a problem, even if they are bound by law. Different countries have different approaches here, the US has its juries, which is an unusual approach compared to other democracies.
meh. i wrote about this just yesterday. i am more concerned about being forced on gunpoint to hand over my phone and with that, i am not sure what was installed.
> The judges said indiscriminate spying could not be allowed and highlighted the “chilling” effect it could have on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I don't know if this is what the judges said or if it is the Guardian's spin on what they said. Either way, the Indian constitution has no separate guarantee for "freedom of the press."[1] Theoretically, the press has as much (or as little) freedom as the common man. Practically, the ability to openly blackmail all and sundry means they can say what they want without repercussions.
Further, Article 19(2) severely restricts any such right to "freedom of expression" for a variety of reasons, including national security:
> Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
In a twist of irony, Jawaharlal Nehru, former prime minister and the great-grandfather of the Rahul Gandhi mentioned in the Guardian article is responsible for this curtailment of rights. He could not run his socialist regime in peace if there was absolute freedom of speech and expression.
I am sure there is some law somewhere which allows the Indian government to spy on its citizens. After all, there are hundreds of British-era laws still on the books. The only question is whether such spying is "reasonable."
There, I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to elected representatives. I am not in favor of handing over veto power over executive decisions to judges who are not only unelected, but probably unique in any democratic country to have reserved the power to select their own replacements. Imagine the US Senate twiddling its thumbs while US Supreme Court judges selected not only their own successors, but also every single judge in the federal judiciary.
> I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to elected representatives
You and everyone else marching India towards authoritarianism. Following the tracks of every failed democracy that didn't fall to an invasion or military coup fails: not understanding the difference between majoritarianism and democracy. (I was actually surprised to see the Supreme Court pushing back on the government--I didn't realize India had such checks and balances left.)
> not understanding the difference between majoritarianism and democracy
Democracy literally is: rule of the people. If the majority in a country votes one way and this way is not acceptable to the minority, there are a few ways to frustrate the will of the people:
- give minorities veto power over decisions affecting the lives of the majority
- install a permanent plutocracy within various arms of the government that is not answerable to the people in any way, shape or form
This happens in India all the time. Know, however, that all these options are undemocratic to the core. And eventually ends badly for everyone involved.
This sense about a measure of authoritarianism or failure of democracy, feels like a moral high ground, to pick and pry on India , in almost every Indian journal. Yet they write article upon article, in India , of suppression of freedom , which seem not related at all!Why is that? Are these colonial standards essential for all of common-wealth ?
What makes this democratically elected government authoritarian?
India is surrounded by communist China, Islamist Pakistan, Afganistan, Bangladesh (where only a couple of days ago 300 Hindus were murdered by Islamist for no reason), Military dictatorship in Myanmar.
I do not know what benchmark you use for authoritarianism.
In a democracy the only thing that matters is the mandate of the people.
I am certain after all the fake votes and drama that ultimately ended with storming of the capitol, I would perhaps place Indian democracy above that of the US.
EXACTLY. You can't just label any government you don't like as undemocratic or authoritarian randomly. If elections were held and when there were no electoral fraud and people voted for this Government, it doesn't just magically become undemocratic just because you don't like it.
Calling India undemocratic is definitely a stretch. But the current government is definitely more authoritarian. Considering the huge lack of respect to law and order in India, that's fair to a certain extent. Here, in the US, anti-vaxxers practically have a free reign in certain places. Any attempt to coerce them into vaccination is considered as "authoritarian".
> I don't know if this is what the judges said or if it is the Guardian's spin on what they said.
The court did say this
> "This is of particular concern when it relates to the freedom of the press, which is an important pillar of democracy. Such chilling effect on the freedom of speech is an assault on the vital public-watchdog role of the press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information," the judgment said.
Hard to give benefit of doubt to elected representatives who wanted to form an investigative committee by themselves to investigate whether they themselves deployed Pegasus and spied on country’s citizens. “Yeah, right.”, that’s what SC effectively said to them here.
Then, in 1993, it ruled that only sitting judges would be able to appoint new members of the judiciary. It was a coup of sorts. India’s founding
Over the years, the scale of the problem has become staggering. In 2010, Bhushan’s father, Shanti—who, as the law minister in the government that dethroned Indira Gandhi in 1977, had been a key force in repealing many of her draconian decrees—submitted to the Supreme Court, in a sealed document, the names of eight chief justices who he claimed were “definitely corrupt.” His efforts went no further, though he now faces a contempt case of his own.
The post is about India's SC. How is discussing its neutrality and corruption make it off topic?
The comment I was replying to was discussing the govt appointing its own committee to investigate itself. My point was the supreme court is even more opaque and corrupt.
It is not democratically controlled, so the SC investigating here is not necessarily better.
“India’s supreme court has ordered an inquiry by an independent committee into the question of whether the government used Pegasus surveillance software for illegal spying.
The committee will comprise three cybersecurity experts and its work will be overseen by a retired supreme court judge. It will submit its report in two months.
In announcing their decision, the judges criticised the government’s refusal to divulge, on the grounds of national security, any details of what the software was used for and why. They said Delhi had offered “only a vague … denial of allegations”.
NSO has said its hacking software is only meant to be used by government clients to conduct legitimate investigations into serious crime.
The Indian government has said very little on the scandal, largely confining itself to accusing those making the allegations of trying to discredit the country and malign Indian democracy with their “anti-India agenda.
During earlier hearings, the government had offered to form its own panel of experts but this was rejected on Wednesday by the judges, who began the hearing by noting the “Orwellian concerns” about the misuse of technology.”