Breaking Down The News: How Pegasus Petitioners Shielded Terrorists from Surveillance
In a country constantly under threat from cross-border terrorism and internal sabotage, one would expect national security tools to be strengthened, not challenged. Yet in a bizarre twist that only India’s activist-judicial complex could produce, a bunch of journalists, activists, and political operatives approached the Supreme Court not to demand better protection from terrorism, but to protest the government’s use of Pegasus spyware—a tool globally used to track terrorists and thwart attacks.
Let’s call a spade a spade. The people behind this legal crusade aren’t just ordinary citizens concerned about privacy. They are individuals with political and ideological baggage, often aligned with parties or causes that have a history of undermining India’s national interest. Advocate Kapil Sibal, once a Cabinet Minister under the Congress-led UPA, now floats as an independent Rajya Sabha MP with backing from the Samajwadi Party. And here he was, leading the charge against a surveillance tool that has likely saved lives. Representing journalists like Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and activists like Jagdeep Chhokar, Sibal chose to attack Pegasus as a violation of privacy—while terrorists continued to infiltrate borders and plant bombs.
Let’s name the rest of the crew: N. Ram, former editor of The Hindu; Sashi Kumar, founder of the Asian College of Journalism; John Brittas, CPI(M) MP; Prem Shankar Jha, SNM Abdi, Rupesh Kumar Singh—journalists whose writings consistently bash the Indian state while romanticizing separatists and Maoists. Jagdeep Chhokar, founder of the Association for Democratic Reforms, operates an NGO that has been under scrutiny for its foreign funding and suspicious agenda. And Manohar Lal Sharma, the PIL specialist whose cases often seem designed to gum up the wheels of the Indian state.
Their petition wasn’t just about stopping misuse—it was an attempt to get the Supreme Court to force the government into revealing classified information. They wanted the R.V. Raveendran committee report, formed to probe the Pegasus allegations, to be made public. The government resisted, citing national security. The court, to its credit, partially agreed—but still entertained the notion that spyware might be infringing on “citizens’ rights.” The only question is: what kind of citizen are we talking about? Because if it’s one with links to terror cells, radical propaganda networks, or Maoist sympathizers, then this privacy debate becomes nothing but a shield for treachery.
Even more worrying is the pattern. Several of these individuals and their affiliated organizations have received funds from international entities like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations—an organization known for meddling in domestic politics under the garb of promoting democracy. While no direct transactional proof has yet been unearthed linking these Pegasus petitioners to Pakistan, their statements and actions often align with narratives pushed by Pakistan’s media and diplomatic circles. From amplifying claims of “civilian oppression” in Kashmir to questioning India’s surgical strikes, this crowd has long mastered the art of sabotaging national security using the vocabulary of human rights.
The Solicitor General rightly argued in court that terrorists do not have privacy rights. What he should have added is that those who protect them from behind courtroom podiums shouldn’t have the luxury of moral high ground either. The timing of this litigation, coming amid repeated terror incidents like the Pahalgam attack, speaks volumes. While Indian soldiers die at the hands of Pakistani-backed militants, these self-declared champions of civil liberty fight to blind the state from watching the very enemies pulling the trigger.
This isn’t just a legal debate. It’s a national security threat wrapped in judicial robes. The Supreme Court must not allow itself to be used as a forum where national defense tools are weakened to appease politically motivated activists. India needs surveillance. India needs Pegasus. And India definitely needs fewer people whose activism ends up protecting those who want to destroy it.
