Dwivedi: In Puttaswamy case when scheme of Aadhar was examined, this court went into entire scheme& concluded that the entire software was protected & there was no chance of leakage. In this case nothing is indicated under what provision of law!
Dwivedi: The petitioner’s phone was infiltrated. There is an analysis done by Amnesty. I would have been happy if Government said the spyware wasn’t used. What’s important is if it was used against me.
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi: I endorse what Mr Sibal has said. There is nothing in Minster’s statement that Government is NOT using #Pegasus. There’s nothing that says they haven’t used the facility & agencies are not using it.
Sr Adv Rohatgi for WhatsApp opposes: He had withdrawn it unconditionally to approach the Committee. Don’t give him the liberty.
Bench: he has right to file a fresh plea
Rohatgi: Court shouldn’t give him liberty These are only instruments of harassment
CJI: Problem is this writ Petition is on a different line altogether. Revival of that writ doesn’t help you. If you want a fresh investigation you can file a fresh plea and we’ll hear you
CJI: Problem is this writ Petition is on a different line altogether. Revival of that writ doesn’t help you. If you want a fresh investigation you can file a fresh plea and we’ll hear yo
Bench: even if we allow to restore your petition, you want an investigation by NIA?
CJI: its better to grant liberty to you to file a fresh writ petition.
KN Govindacharya has filed an application to revive his 2019 petition seeking a probe into #Pegasus scandal which was withdrawn to explore alternative remedies
Other counsels submit: Restoration can wait
Bench: Even if we restore your application, your prayer is different. You want an inquiry by NIA
Sr Adv Vikas singh appearing fo Govindacharya makes submissions: There are agencies authorised under IT Act.
CJI: your petition has been withdrawn. You want to go before the Parliament committee. So we will have to restore it since it’s withdrawn.