Pegasus: Centre cites national security for not filing affidavit on snooping row in Supreme Court

"Filing (an affidavit) and making it public discourse is not possible (as it) will affect national security... We cannot let terrorists know what software is used..." Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a three-member bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana.

However, Ramana said that the time was given to the government to come up with an affidavit.

"No, Mr Mehta, last time we wanted an affidavit and that is why we granted you time and now you are saying this... we are going back again and again... we reiterate... we don't want to know about national security. The issue is... we have citizens saying their phones were tapped," the Chief Justice stressed.

The court has reserved interim orders and said it will announce the same in two to three days.

The apex court has, however, offered the government a measure of reprieve, allowing it to approach the court before then if it changes its mind on filing an affidavit.

Senior journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar had earlier approached the Supreme Court for an independent probe headed by a former or sitting top court judge into the Pegasus surveillance scam relating to alleged snooping on opposition leaders, activists, journalists and judges among a host of other persons.

This was the third petition seeking probe into the spying scandal, claiming that the forensic analysis of several mobile phones belonging to persons targeted for surveillance by the Security Lab of Amnesty International has confirmed Pegasus-induced security breaches.

It also contended that mass surveillance using military-grade spyware abridges several fundamental rights and appears to represent an attempt to infiltrate, attack and destabilise independent institutions that act as critical pillars of our democratic setup.

The plea also sought a direction to the Centre to disclose if the government or any of its agencies have obtained licenses for Pegasus spyware or used it, either directly or indirectly, to conduct surveillance in any manner.

"Surveillance/interception is justified only in cases of public emergency or in the interests of public safety, and the existence of such conditions must be inferred reasonably and cannot be determined solely on the assessment of the government. Neither of these mandatory conditions has been met in the present case, rendering the surveillance wholly illegal," the petition had said.