Win For Investigative Journalism : N Ram On Supreme Court's Pegasus Order

A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India of Justices N.V.Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli ordered the constitution of an independent expert committee to look into the allegations of widespread and targeted surveillance of politicians, journalists, activists, etc using the Pegasus software.The functioning of the committee will be overseen by retired Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran and the Technical Committee will comprise three members. The Court has asked the committee to investigate the matter expeditiously. In light of important observations made by the Court in its order regarding the necessity of freedom of press and the potential "chilling effect" of mass surveillance, LiveLaw spoke to N.Ram, one of the most respected senior journalists in the country and the former Chief Editor of 'The Hindu', which has heralded brilliant pieces of investigative journalism on issues like Bofors and Rafale. At the onset, N.Ram, as one of the petitioners in the case, expressed his pleasure at the interim order. "I think the narration of the issues, statement of principle, and the comprehensive terms of reference all indicate that it's a significant order...they've gone deeply into these questions even though these are only interim orders. As a petitioner, I am very pleased and I welcome this," he says. That an independent committee headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court be set up to investigate the allegations, feels like a "vindication" of the petitioners' demands, he adds. Such chilling effect on the freedom of speech is an assault on the vital public¬ watchdog role of the press: Supreme Court The Court in its order had observed that the issue of possible surveillance is concerning not only from the point of view of privacy of individuals but also from the perspective of the freedom of the press. The order notes- "Such a 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." N.Ram notes that these observations of the court on the freedom of the press are very significant as freedom of speech has come under tremendous pressure and assault in different parts of the country from the Central government and some state governments. "Eloquent sentences of this order on freedom of the press, the need to protect it, and also some reflections on the 'chilling effect' particularly pleased me," he adds. The court in its order also makes a vital observation regarding the need to protect journalistic sources and the potential chilling effect that such illegal effect may have. It notes-" protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom of the press. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest." Speaking from personal experience, N. Ram opines that in practice there isn't much interference. "I don't know about the situation in different parts of the country, so far as our investigation is concerned in Bofors and later in Rafale, there's been no real pressure to reveal or disclose the sources other than perhaps attempts like Pegasus to steal this information illegally," he explains. However, he adds, "I feel the protection of journalistic sources whether it is protected under law adequately is still debatable. Legal experts like Gautam Bhatia have raised this issue. Nevertheless, in the law of the land, I think it is going to be very important because there is a lacuna in the law." Art.19 (1) (a) of the Constitution does not contain any express guarantee on 'source protection' for journalists. Ram mentioned that legal scholar Gautam Bhatia in a piece on 'Free Speech and Source Protection for Journalists' had argued that the issue of source-protection laws for journalists has largely gone unaddressed in Indian constitutional and statutory law. In the piece written for Centre for Internet and Society, he had argued that whereas both the United States and Europe had recognized the importance of source protection, Indian jurisprudence on the issue is negligible despite the Law Commission having twice proposed some manner of a shield law for journalistic source protection. Bhatia had argued that in order to protect the role of press as a either a strong shield law, or a definitive Supreme Court ruling, is required to fill the current vacuum that exists.As N Ram points out, the protection of journalistic sources becomes especially important in investigative journalism as journalists will be unable to play the role of a watchdog unless they can guarantee confidentiality to their sources. In expressing delight that the Supreme Court has called attention to the issue of journalistic sources, N Ram echoes the sentiment of others who hope that the going forward the Court uses...

Win For Investigative Journalism : N Ram On Supreme Court's Pegasus Order

Sneha Rao

Tags