SC wasn't too happy with quality of petitions filed in Pegasus case

The Supreme Court may have passed a highly significant order on the Pegasus snooping matter, but it was initially not satisfied with the quality of petitions filed in the case. It was only pleas filed subsequently including by petitioners who were themselves purportedly victims of the spyware that made the court decide on judicial intervention.

In its order passed on Wednesday, a three-justice bench headed by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana noted that initially the court was not satisfied with the writ petitions filed as they were completely reliant upon certain newspaper reports. It said that the court has generally attempted to discourage writ petitions, particularly public interest litigations that are based entirely on newspaper reports without any additional steps taken by the petitioner.

The court conveyed a cautionary message to petitioners about pleas that are filed based only on media reports. “While we understand that the allegations made in these petitions pertain to matters about which ordinary citizens would not have information except for the investigating reporting done by news agencies, looking to the quality of some of the petitions filed, we are constrained to observe that individuals should not file half-baked petitions merely on a few newspaper reports,” the court observed.

It was stated in the order that such petitions, far from helping the cause espoused by the individual filing the petition, are often detrimental to the cause itself. “This is because the court will not have proper assistance in the matter, with the burden to even determine preliminary facts being left to the court,” the Supreme Court noted.

The court said that for this reason, trigger-happy filing of such petitions in courts, and more particularly in the Supreme Court—which is the final adjudicatory body in the country—needs to be discouraged.

It did, however, clarify that this should not be taken to mean that the news agencies are not trusted by it. “But newspaper reports, in and of themselves, should not in the ordinary course be taken to be ready-made pleadings that may be filed in court,” it added.

The initial dissatisfaction with the nature of petitions filed made way for great concern and even the need to intervene when various other petitions were filed, including by individuals who were purportedly victims of the alleged Pegasus spyware attack.

The court said that these subsequently filed petitions, as well as additional documents filed by others, have brought on record certain materials that cannot be brushed aside, such as the reports of reputed organisations like Citizen Lab and affidavits of experts.

Additionally, it said that the sheer volume of cross-referenced and cross-verified reports from various reputable news organisations across the world along with the reactions of foreign governments and legal institutions also moved it to consider that this is a case where the jurisdiction of the court may be exercised.

On the government's stance in the matter, the court noted, “Of course, the learned solicitor general suggested that many of these reports are motivated and self-serving.” It added that, however, such an omnibus oral allegation is not sufficient to desist from interference.