State Surveillance and Legal Boundaries

State surveillance requires systemic checks and supervision to avoid mirroring illegal activities akin to those found in the dark underworld. The Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for identifying legitimate targets for state surveillance rather than questioning the state's ability to use spyware like Pegasus.

Supreme Court's Stance

• The Court focused on potential misuse of powers and tools of surveillance during hearings of alleged monitoring of various societal figures.
• The government has neither confirmed nor denied using Pegasus, a military-grade spyware sold only to state entities.
• The matter escalated to the Court following global revelations on Pegasus usage, leading to a technical committee investigation hindered by non-cooperation from alleged targets and the government.

Challenges in Surveillance

• Many iPhone users, a primary target of Pegasus, received security alerts of suspected state surveillance.
• States globally have used extra-legal measures to monitor targets employing advanced technologies to shield communications.
• Terrorists and criminals use encryption to evade detection while planning harm to society.

Legal and Technological Adequacy

• The Supreme Court raised concerns about the government's arbitrary invocation of national security to deny due process and transparency.
• Government tendencies to label political opponents as anti-nationals were highlighted as troubling.

Framework for Surveillance

• If the state seeks increased surveillance powers, it must establish robust guardrails to prevent abuses.
• National security should not justify executive arbitrariness or infringe on individual rights and dignity.
• Protocols ensuring defined standards and steps in surveillance should be established and subject to oversight by other government branches and the public.
• No state agency should interfere with democratic politics or suppress dissenting voices and activism.

Overall, while addressing security threats, India's constitutional democracy compass should remain steadfast.