Calcutta High Court Refuses to Entertain PIL Against ‘Pegasus’ Software Allegedly Used to Invade Privacy of Citizens
Calcutta High Court Refuses to Entertain PIL Against ‘Pegasus’ Software Allegedly Used to Invade Privacy of Citizens
The Calcutta High Court has refused to entertain the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a social activist alleging gadgets and spyware like Pegasus to invade the privacy of civil society in case of Sujit Kumar Datta vs. State of West Bengal.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya dismissed the PIL seeking determination of whether the right of privacy of an individual is being violated by spyware such as Pegasus, which is alleged to have been installed onto the computer of the individual.
The bench was of the view that the prayers made by the petitioner were vague and said, “The prayers made are vague thus, we do not deem it fit to entertain the petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make representation before appropriate authorities, if his individual privacy is invaded.”
Additionally, the bench was of the opinion that such blanket directions against the use of modern technology due to their alleged violation of the fundamental right to privacy of individuals could not be passed.
The petitioner, Sujit Kumar Datta asserted to be a social worker and alleged that during his travel for work, he found that many people whom he was extending his assistance were facing problems of infringement of privacy due to forms of technology such as Pegasus, amongst others.
He pleaded that his representations to the concerned authorities went unheard, consequently which led him to approach the Court by filing a PIL.
To support his contentions, he referred upon the nine-judge’s bench decision of the Supreme Court in (Retd.) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., which affirmed the Right to Privacy to be a fundamental right under the Right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
He apprehended that the State authorities are illegally invading the privacy of the members of civil society. He alleged that the authorities are using Pegasus and other similar modern software to invade the privacy of the civil society.
He argued that his own right to life and liberty and right to privacy are at stake and thus, the Court must intervene.
Thus, the Court granted him leave to approach the appropriate authorities in case he believed that his fundamental right to privacy was being interfered with by any third parties.
