Pegasus : How Can Expert Committee Examine Issues On Procurement, Sanctions Etc?SC - Read Full Courtroom Exchange

The Supreme Court on Monday resumed hearing on the batch of petitions in connection with the Pegasus controversy.At the outset, Chief Justice N. V. Ramana inquired from all senior advocates appearing in the matter if they have perused the counter-affidavit filed by the UOI- "You must have seen the affidavit of the State, the government of India? They have denied in the first two pages, and in the last paragraph, they have taken their stand. Why don't you read that paragraph, Mr. SG?"SG Tushar Mehta proceeded to do as asked, quoting from the affidavit-"All petitions are based on uncorroborated material and media reports...there is nothing in them...This question stands clarified on the floor of the Parliament by the Minister of Railways, Communications, Electronics and Information Technology. In that view of the matter, in the respectful submission of the deponent, nothing further needs to be done. Petitioners have not made out any case. It is however submitted that with a view to dispel any wrong narrative spread by any vested interest and with an object of examining the issue, the Union of India will constitute a committee of experts which will go into all aspects of the issue""I am denying every allegation. This issue is essentially a technical issue. It is one for specialized experts", explained the SG"So all contents in the affidavits have been denied by you? And still you are wanting to clarify the issue by appointing a committee of experts?", the CJ asked the SG to confirm."The Hon'ble Minister (Ashwini Vaishnaw) made it very clear that this was a sensational story published by a portal a day before the Parliament was about to sit. He has given all the details. His statement has been recorded in the Parliament proceedings which I have verbatim annexed. The minister's response deals with everything, how this hyperbole has started. This is the stand of the central government on merits. However, there is nothing to hide. There is nothing which needs examination, that is the stand. But nonetheless, this is a highly technical issue. This requires specialised expertise. We will appoint neutral, eminent people of the field and they will go into this question and examine the matter and place it before Your Lordships. I don't think the government can be more transparent and fair than this", replied the SG.Next, Justice Aniruddha Bose informed the advocates that he has, some time ago, met and had some interaction with 2 of the petitioners at a social function, event or gathering and if any of the advocates have any objections to the judge hearing the matter.All senior counsel signaled that they have no reservations in this regard. Mr. Mehta advanced, "As far as objection is concerned, only I can have it and I have no objection. Even if Your Lordships had any dispension on the subject, it will have no bearing on the proceedings""No, no dispensation. Only at a social gathering, like a marriage, my brother met those people", clarified the CJ. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for WhatsApp also said, "I don't think anybody has any objection. Your Lordships will be pleased to proceed"Next, the SG asked if the bench would like him to go through the statement of the Minister on the floor of the House as the bench may not have had the occasion to read it. "There are details that earlier also certain claims were made and they were denied", pressed the SG. "It is okay. You have said you have nothing to do. Also, on the first day of the hearing, some counsel has read out the statement made by the Minister", said the CJ.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Journalists N Ram and Sashikumar Mr. Sibal flagged 3 issues in the short affidavit filed by the Centre- "One, the deponent has submitted, 'I state and submit that due to the limited time at the disposal of the deponent, it is not possible to deal with all the facts stated and the contentions raised in the batch of petitions. I have a strong objection to that for the simple reason that they have to state on oath whether the government of India or any agency of the government of India has ever used the software. If they haven't, then our arguments will have to be different. But once the Secretary to the government of India has to state so on oath. If they have, then our submissions will be different. But this fact must be denied or stated by them- Whether Pegasus was ever used by the government or any of its agencies. And this is what we have alleged in the petitions and they have not responded and they say 'limited time'. They have enough time at their disposal. Your Lordships will give them more time. Allow them as much time as they want to state whether they have ever used Pegasus. This affidavit does not answer the issues raised by us""Two, the affidavit reads that 'a bare perusal of the captioned petition and other connected petitions makes it clear that the same are based on conjectures and surmises'. Now, when they say they have not answered the petitions on fact,...

Pegasus : How Can Expert Committee Examine Issues On Procurement, Sanctions Etc?SC - Read Full Courtroom Exchange

Mehal Jain

Tags