SG: If there is an illegitimate use then it cannot be countenanced by this court. There can’t be anything more fair than this.
Bench to SG - We will issue notice. Let competent authority decide to what extent information can be disclosed.
Bench: What is the problem if that competent authority files an affidavit before us? We don’t want you to say anything related to national security!
Bench: Here the issue is different, there are people alleging hacking of their phones. In case of civilians also rules permit, but only on permission by competent authority.
Bench to SG: Weas a court and you as SG and lawyers as officers of court, none of us would like to compromise with security of this country or defence of nation, irrespective of prayer or no prayer
Centre refuses to file additional affidavit in Pegasus issue; tells Supreme Court that national security aspects are involved and they cannot be put in affidavit and made matters of public debate.
Bench to TM - We are not concerned about the prayer made by petitioners. None of us would like to compromise with the security of the nation. We will not ask you disclose anything that will compromise the defence of our country.
SG: Those who are likely to be intercepted, may take preemptive or corrective steps. These are issues of national security. What is used or not used are part of national security. We will place everything before committee it can’t be subject matter of affidavit or public debate
Tushar Mehta - All petitions pray for inquiry by SC. Yesterday their stand was whether Pegasus was used or not, nothing beyond that.
Under the Rules softwares can be used for security purposes. Govt. will never divulge the software for security reasons.
these are issues of national security. Cannot reveal which software used which is not. We can't place on affidavit and make it a part of public debate. Such information can only be placed before an Expert Committee.
We can't divulge such information on affidavit. Petitioners should not insist for the same.
SG: Government of India is before highest constitutional court. There is a statutory mechanism which permits you can have interceptions as per statutory procedure. Now all petitions pray that SC should inquire into this.