Pegasus Snooping Row: Supreme Court Hearing On Pleas For Independent Probe-LIVE UPDATES

Datar : There are two parts in the case. There are rights in rem. And there are individual cases. As far as individual cases, there is no remedy other than suit under Section 43. As far as privacy, the provision only deals with body parts.

Datar therefore says that there is no provision for filing FIR.

CJI asks if 66A is applicable.

Datar : That was struck down.

Datar : The criminal provision in IT Ac 66E refers to infringement of privacy in relation to bodily parts. That is not applicable here.

Now Datar appears for two journalists who were in the Pegasus targets.

Datar : As per IT Act Section 43, I can file suit for damages, however we don't know who has hacked our phones therefore civil remedy is useless

Dwivedi : This is a larger issue involving constitutionality and not just criminality.

Dwivedi : Ordinary individuals - writing on issues that concern Govt cannot be subjected to surveillance.

Dwivedi : As regards filing complaint, this is a matter of very wide dimensions. This is not a case of an individual's phone has been bugged. It is a mass action. It is a case where the Govt of India should have taken action on its own.

Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for SNM Abdi journalist whose names were in the potential list of #Pegasus targets. He refers to The Wire  report about forensic examination suggesting infection of his phone.

Divan : Given the dimensions of the case, it must have been by a high level bureaucrat who has access to different ministries.

Divan : For a private citizen to find out that a spyware has been turned on him by the govt, it is something perse unconstitutional. It constitutes a war by the govt on the citizen.

Divan : For a private citizen to find out that a spyware has been turned on him by the govt, it is something perse unconstitutional. It constitutes a war by the govt on the citizen.