wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Prasad brings Pegasus’s flight in Parliament to a grinding halt, denies ‘unlawful interception’

“And, Sir, to the best of my knowledge, no unauthorised interception has been done,” IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad informed the Rajya Sabha on November 28, wrapping another unsatisfying chapter in the saga of “Did the Indian government purchase Israeli spyware Pegasus to spy on its citizens?”. Despite being asked by at least five different MPs during the debate, Prasad did not categorically confirm or deny whether the government purchased the spyware.

This non-answer, similar to the one given to MP Dayanidhi Maran on November 19 in Lok Sabha, suggests that Pegasus was indeed purchased by the Indian government to carry out “lawful” interception. The repeated lack of categorical denial by the government, both by MeitY and Ministry of Home Affairs, is concerning.

Sticking to the script, Prasad cited Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, Section 5 of the Telegraph Act and the standard operating procedure under which people can be legally surveilled by the state. Interception can be authorised by the Home Secretary in case of the central government, and the State Home Secretary in the case of a state government.

Government’s stance on Pegasus-WhatsApp Row

CERT-In intends to audit WhatsApp’s systems: Prasad revealed to Rajya Sabha that on November 9, CERT-In (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team) wrote to WhatsApp, seeking more information, including a need to conduct an audit and inspection of WhatsApp’s security systems and processes.

Government finally sent a notice to the NSO Group on November 26: A number of parliamentarians had asked during the debate why a formal government notice had not been sent to the Israeli spyware company that developed Pegasus. Prasad revealed that a notice had indeed been sent to NSO Group on November 26.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Government will not become party to the lawsuit in California: Prasad said that the government of India did not wish to “join a private battle between two companies”. MP P. Wilson (DMK) asked Prasad if the government intended to implead itself in the lawsuit in California.

Read more: Prasad gives details of communication between MeitY and WhatsApp in Rajya Sabha

Central government not responsible for what state governments do: During the debate, Congress MP Digvijaya Singh had asked for details of the state governments, specifically Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra, and police departments that had met the NSO Group to purchase Pegasus, and how many of these were in BJP-ruled states. Prasad replied, “They are asking me over and over again if we [the government] has purchased Pegasus. We have said repeatedly that there is a standard operating procedure. Are we [the central government] responsible for what the state governments do?”

Coincidence that critics of Modi government were targeted: Prasad called it a coincidence and said, “Not even a single FIR has been filed till date, as per the intimation to us. No complaint is made in the IT Ministry till date by anyone.”

“We are very clear: that whoever has a complaint, file an FIR, take ₹5 lakh in damages, send someone to jail for 3 years [referring to Section 66 of the IT Act]. Indian government will provide full support in such an inquiry. But the government should not be involved in any fishing expedition.” — Ravi Shankar Prasad

Link between global demands against E2E encryption and WhatsApp’s lawsuit against NSO? Prasad suggested a correlation, if not a causation, between demands from India, USA, UK and Australia against end-to-end encryption and WhatsApp’s lawsuit against NSO Group. “It is a too much of a coincidence that when the Government of India is pressing for traceability of offensive messages, America, Australia and England are joining that battle. Then suddenly a case is filed. I don’t now whether it was by design or it was by accident or it was coincidence, I will not make any judgment. But this happened,” he said.

Read our extensive coverage on the WhatsApp-Pegasus-NSO row here.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Written By

Send me tips at aditi@medianama.com. Email for Signal/WhatsApp.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ