in June this year, a global joint media investigation reported on the possible widespread use or misuse of Vegas is highly invasive. Israel made spyware that can virtually take over your phone and relay back to whoever has deployed at every aspect of digital communication. In India, close to over 100 names emerged of those who may have been selected for targeting by Pegasus, including opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi. The TMC is Abhishek Banerji, as well as a raft of government critics, journalists and activists. For weeks, as the controversy snowboard, the government stonewalled answers through vague denials and office K shins, a strategy that it maintained even before the Supreme Court, which was hearing a clutch of petitions seeking an independent probe in court as it did outside of it the government duct and weaved from playing the national security card to describing the claims of snooping as motivated. Pushed by the court, it finally said it would set up a panel to look into the allegations. But today, in a major setback to the government, the Supreme Court overruled that plea, ordering a three member team to probe the allegations of whether the government did use Pegasus on its citizens. The Supreme Court overruled the government while doing that. It said that the government's claims were vague denials and said that if the centre had made it stand clear, it would have been a different situation. The court also rejected the centres national security argument, saying the centre can't get a free pass by raising the spectre of national security. The mere invocation of national security does not render the court a mute spectator. It also said that the possibility of the foreign authorities surveilling Indian citizens was one of the reasons wide intervened and as I said, it rejected the government's plea for a government appointed panel, saying that there are allegations that governments party to the deprivation of the rights of citizens and therefore the government can't probe itself. The court didn't stop there spelling out a host of reasons why the Pegasus allegations raised red flags leading the court to step in, the court said that the right to privacy, which can potentially be violated by Pegasus, is sacrosanct. It said the right to privacy is not absolute, but restrictions must pass constitutional scrutiny. Privacy is not a singular concern only of journalists or activist but of every citizen. It also raised concerns about the implications of practises to the media. We go across to the next point. It's undeniable that surveillance might result in the self censorship of the media, it said of particularly concerned when it relates to the freedom of press. Such a chilling effect on the freedom of speech is an assault on the media. The court also said it couldn't brush aside reports of reputed organisations like the Citizens Lab, which had done tests on phones reportedly infected by Pegasus. It said that it took note of a sheer volume of reports from reputed global media houses and also of reactions of foreign governments and legal institutions. It said that the solicitor general had suggested many of these reports are motivated, but the court said such an omnibus oral allegation is not sufficient to desist from interference. So what will this committee set up by the court now probe It will number one determine whether Pegasus was used on the phones of Indians. It will look at whether details of victims of the spyware attack whether Pegasus was acquired by the government or by government agencies. It's Pegasus was used under what law is the use of Pegasus authorised
