MANOHAR LAL SHARMA vs. UNION OF INDIA

REPORTABLE I N   THE  S UPREME  C OURT   OF  I NDIA C RIMINAL  /C IVIL  O RIGINAL  J URISDICTION   W RIT  P ETITION  (C RL .) N O . 314  OF  2021   M ANOHAR  L AL  S HARMA                    …P ETITIONER V ERSUS NION OF NDIA AND RS ESPONDENT S U    I    O .       …R ( ) With RIT ETITION IVIL O OF   W  P  (C ) N . 826   2021   With   W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 909  OF  2021   With   W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 861  OF  2021   With RIT ETITION IVIL O OF   W  P  (C ) N . 849   2021   With   W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 855  OF  2021   With   W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 829  OF  2021   With Signature Not Verified RIT ETITION IVIL O OF   W  P  (C ) N . 850   2021   Digitally signed by Vishal Anand Date: 2021.10.27 11:22:27 IST Reason: With 1 RIT ETITION IVIL O OF   W  P  (C ) N . 848   2021   With   W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 853  OF  2021   With   W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 851  OF  2021   With RIT ETITION IVIL O OF   W  P  (C ) N . 890   2021     ORDER   The Court is convened through Video Conferencing. “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” ­George Orwell, 1984 1. The   present   batch   of   Writ   Petitions   raise   an   Orwellian concern,   about   the   alleged   possibility   of   utilizing   modern technology to hear what you hear, see what you see and to know what   you   do.   In   this  context,   this   Court   is   called   upon   to examine an allegation of the use of such a technology, its utility, need and alleged abuse. We make it clear that our effort is to uphold the constitutional aspirations and rule of law, without allowing ourselves to be consumed in the political rhetoric. This 2 Court has always been conscious of not entering the political thicket. However, at the same time, it has never cowered from protecting all from the abuses of fundamental rights.  All that we would like to observe in this regard is a reiteration of what had

A short conspectus of the events leading up to the present 2. batch of petitions would not be misplaced to highlight the scope of the issues at hand. In September 2018, Citizen Lab, which is a laboratory   based   out   of   the   University   of   Toronto,   Canada, 3 released a report detailing the software capabilities of a “spyware suite”   called   Pegasus   that   was   being   produced   by   an   Israeli Technology firm,  viz. , the NSO Group. The report indicated that individuals from nearly 45 countries were suspected to have been affected.  3. The   Pegasus   suite   of   spywares   can  allegedly   be   used   to compromise the digital devices of an individual through zero click vulnerabilities,   i.e. , without requiring any action on the part of the   target   of   the   software.   Once   the   software   infiltrates   an individual’s device, it allegedly has the capacity to access the entire stored data on the device, and has real time access to emails,  texts,   phone   calls,   as   well  as   the   camera   and   sound recording capabilities of the device. Once the device is infiltrated using   Pegasus,   the   entire   control   over   the   device   is   allegedly handed over to the Pegasus user who can then remotely control all the functionalities of the device and switch different features on   or   off.   The   NSO   Group   purportedly   sells   this   extremely powerful software only to certain undisclosed Governments and the   end   user   of   its   products   are   “exclusively   government intelligence   and   law   enforcement   agencies”   as   per   its   own website. 4 4. In May 2019, the global messaging giant WhatsApp Inc. identified a vulnerability in its software that enabled Pegasus spyware to infiltrate the devices of WhatsApp’s users. This news was followed by a disclosure that the devices of certain Indians were also affected, which fact was acknowledged by the then Hon’ble   Minister   of   Law   and   Electronics   and   Information th Technology   in   a   statement   made   in   the   Parliament   on   20 November 2019.   th 5. On 15   June 2020, Citizen Lab, in collaboration with the international human rights organization, Amnesty International uncovered another spyware campaign which allegedly targeted nine individuals in India, some of whom were already suspected targets in the first spyware attack. th 6. On 18   July 2021, a consortium of nearly 17 journalistic organizations   from   around   the   world,   including   one   Indian organization, released the results of a long investigative effort indicating the alleged use of the Pegasus software on several private individuals. This investigative effort was based on a list of some   50,000   leaked   numbers   which   were   allegedly   under surveillance by clients of the NSO Group through the Pegasus software.   Initially,   it  was   discovered   that   nearly   300   of   these 5 numbers   belonged   to   Indians,   many   of   whom   are   senior journalists, doctors, political persons, and even some Court staff. At the time   of  filing  of   the   Writ  Petitions,  nearly  10  Indians’ devices   were   allegedly   forensically   analyzed   to   confirm   the presence of the Pegasus software.  The above reports resulted in largescale action across the 7. globe,   with   certain   foreign   governments   even   diplomatically engaging with the Israeli Government to determine the veracity of the allegations   raised,  while   other  governments   have  initiated proceedings internally to determine the truth of the same. 8. Respondent­Union of India, through the Hon’ble Minister of Railways,   Communications   and   Electronics   and   Information th Technology,   took   the   stand   in   Parliament   on  18   July   2021, when asked about the alleged cyberattack and spyware use, that the reports published had no factual basis. The Minister also stated that  the   Amnesty   report  itself  indicated   that  the   mere mention   of   a   particular   number   in   the   list   did   not   confirm whether the same was infected by Pegasus or not. Further, the Minister stated that NSO had itself factually contradicted many of the claims made in the Amnesty report. Finally, he stated that the Indian statutory and legal regime relating to surveillance and 6 interception   of   communication   is   extremely   rigorous,   and   no illegal surveillance could take place. 9. Some of the Writ Petitioners before this Court allege to be direct   victims   of   the   Pegasus   attack,   while   others   are   Public Interest Litigants. They raise the issue of the inaction on the part of   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   to   seriously   consider   the allegations   raised,   relating   to   the   purported   cyberattack   on citizens of this country. Additionally, the apprehension expressed by some Petitioners relates to the fact that, keeping in mind the NSO Group disclosure that it sold its Pegasus software only to vetted Governments, either some foreign government or certain agencies of the Respondent­Union of India are using the said software on citizens of the country without following the  due procedure established under law. Therefore, to ensure credibility of   the   process,   most   of   the   Petitioners   are   seeking   an independent investigation into the allegations.  10. Before   considering   the   issues   at   hand   on   merits,   it   is necessary for this Court to summarize the events that transpired in the Courtroom proceedings, to give some context to the order being passed.  th 11. On 10  August 2021, it was recorded by this Court that a 7 copy of some of the petitions in this batch had been served on the learned Solicitor General. The learned Solicitor General took an adjournment at that time to get instructions.  th 12. On 16   August 2021, a “limited affidavit” was placed on record by  the  learned  Solicitor  General  that  was  filed  by  the Additional   Secretary,   Ministry   of   Electronics   and   Information Technology,   Union   of   India.   The   relevant  parts   of  the   limited affidavit filed by the Respondent­ Union of India are as follows: “2. I state and submit that  due to the limited time at the disposal of the deponent/respondents, it is not possible to deal with all the facts stated and the contentions raised in the batch of petitions before   this   Hon’ble   Court      I   am   therefore,   filing   this .   limited   affidavit   at   this   stage   while   reserving liberty to file further affidavit hereafter in detail.   I,   however,   respectfully   submit   that   my   not dealing with any of the petitions para wise may not be treated   as   my   having   admitted   the   truthfulness   or otherwise of any of the contents thereof.  3.   At   the   outset,   it   is   submitted   that   I   hereby unequivocally deny any and all of the allegations made against the Respondents in the captioned petition and other   connected   petitions.   A   bare   perusal   of   the captioned   petition   and   other   connected   petitions makes it clear that the same are based on conjectures and   surmises   or   on   other   unsubstantiated   media reports or incomplete or uncorroborated material. It is submitted   that   the   same   cannot   be   the   basis   for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.  4. It is submitted that this question stands already 8 clarified on the floor of the Parliament by the Hon’ble Minister of Railways, Communications and Electronics &   Information   Technology   of   India,   Government   of India. A copy of the statement of the Hon’ble Minister is attached herewith and marked as  .  In Annexure R­1 that view of the matter, in the respectful submission of the deponent, nothing further needs to be done at the behest of the Petitioner, more particularly when they have not made out any case.  5. It is, however, submitted that  with a view to dispel any   wrong   narrative   spread   by   certain   vested interests and with an object of examining the issue raised,   the   Union   of   India   will   constitute   a Committee of Experts in the field which will go in .”  to all aspects of the issue On   that   day,   we   heard   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on behalf  of   the   Petitioners   and   the   learned   Solicitor   General  at some length and adjourned the matter for further hearing.  th 13. On  the   next  date   of   hearing,   on  17   August  2021,   this Court indicated to the learned Solicitor General, while issuing notice to the Respondent­Union of India, that the limited affidavit filed   by   them   was   insufficient   for   the   Court   to   come   to   any conclusion regarding the stand of the Respondent­Union of India with respect to the allegations raised by the Petitioners. As the limited affidavit itself recorded that the detailed facts were not adverted to due to a paucity of time, we indicated to the learned Solicitor General that we were willing to give them further time to 9 enable the  Respondent­Union  of   India  to  file   a  more   detailed affidavit.   The   learned   Solicitor   General   indicated   his apprehension that the disclosure of certain facts might affect the national security and defense of the nation.  14. This   Court   clarified   at   that   juncture   that   it   was   not interested in any information that may have a deleterious impact on the security of the country. However, the Respondent­Union of India could still place on record facts pertaining to the events highlighted   by   the   Petitioners,   without   disclosing   information adjudged to be sensitive by the relevant authorities.  15. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 826 and 851 of 2021, fairly stated   that   the   Petitioners   were   also   concerned   about   the national interest and would not press for any such information. The   learned   Solicitor   General   again   took   some   time   to   seek instructions. th 16. When the matter was next listed on 07   September 2021, the learned Solicitor General requested an adjournment, and we th directed that the matter be listed on 13  September 2021. th 17. On 13   September 2021, we were again informed by the learned Solicitor General that placing the information sought by 10 the   Petitioners   on   an   affidavit   would   be   detrimental   to   the security interests of the nation. The learned Solicitor General submitted that such information could not be made a matter of public debate as the same could be used by terror groups to th hamper national security. He reiterated the statement dated 18 July   2021   made   by   the   Hon’ble   Minister   of   Railways, Communications and Electronics and Information Technology on the floor of the Parliament regarding the statutory mechanism surrounding surveillance and interception in the country which ensures that unauthorized surveillance does not take place. He finally submitted that, to assuage the concerns of the public and to dispel any wrong narratives, considering the technical nature of the issues, the Respondent­Union of India would be willing to constitute an Expert Committee which will go into all aspects and file a report before this Court.   18. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 826 and 851 of 2021, submitted that the Respondent­Union of India should not act in a manner that would prevent the Court from rendering justice and should not withhold information from the Court in a matter concerning the alleged violation of fundamental rights of citizens. 11 He submitted that in the  year 2019, when certain reports of Pegasus   hacking   WhatsApp   came   to   light,   the   then   Hon’ble Minister of Law and Information Technology and Communication had acknowledged the reports of hacking in Parliament, but the Respondent­Union of India had not indicated what actions were taken subsequently, which information they could have disclosed on affidavit. Learned senior counsel submitted that such inaction by   the   Respondent­   Union   was   a   matter   of   grave   concern, particularly   when   reputed   international   organizations   with   no reason for bias against the nation had also accepted the fact of such an attack having been made. Mr. Sibal finally submitted that an independent probe into the alleged incident required to take place under the supervision of retired Judges of this Court, as   was   ordered   by   this   Court   in   the   Jain   Hawala   case.   He objected to the suggestion of the learned Solicitor General that the   Respondent­Union   of   India   itself   be   allowed   to   form   a Committee on the ground that any Committee formed to probe the allegations raised by the Petitioners should be completely independent from the Respondent­Union of India. Mr.   Shyam   Divan,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on 19. behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 849 of 2021 who 12 claims to be one of the parties whose phone was directly affected by Pegasus, submitted that Pegasus enabled an entity to not only surveil or spy on an individual, but also allowed them to implant false documents and evidence in a device. He relied on affidavits filed by two experts in the field of cyber security to buttress his submission regarding the nature and function of the software. Mr. Divan submitted that once such a largescale cyberattack and threat had been made public and brought to the knowledge of the Respondent­Union of India, it was the State’s responsibility to take necessary action to protect the interests and fundamental rights of the citizens, particularly when there existed the risk that such an attack was made by a foreign entity. Mr. Divan pressed for the interim relief sought in Writ Petition (C) No. 849 of 2021, whereby a response was sought on affidavit from the Cabinet Secretary. Mr. Divan also supported the prayer made by Mr. Sibal regarding the constitution of a special Committee or Special Investigation Team to probe the allegations. 20. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 853 of 2021 submitted   that   the   Petitioners   are   senior   journalists   who   are victims   of   the   Pegasus   attack.   He   submitted   that   if   the 13 Respondent­Union of India had made a statement on affidavit that it had not used a malware or spied on the Petitioners in an unauthorized   manner,   that   would   have   been   the   end   of   the matter. Instead, the Respondent­Union of India had not provided any information on affidavit. He therefore urged the Court to constitute   an   independent   Committee   under   its   supervision rather than allowing the Respondent­Union of India to constitute a Committee, as suggested by the learned Solicitor General, to avoid any credibility issues. He further submitted that requiring the   Petitioners   to   hand   over   their   phones   to   a   Committee appointed   by   the   Respondent­Union   of   India,   when   certain allegations   had   been   raised   against   the   Respondent­Union   of India, would amount to a secret exercise whose results would not be trusted by the Petitioners or the public.  21. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf   of   the   Petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   848   of   2021 submitted that his client is a respected journalist whose device had been infected with the Pegasus malware. The main thrust of his   submission   was   that   if   any   pleading   was   not   specifically denied,   it   would   be   deemed   to   have   been   admitted.   As   the Respondent­Union   of   India   had   not   specifically   denied   the 14 Petitioner’s allegation, the same should therefore be deemed to be admitted   by   the   Respondent­Union   of   India.   Learned   senior counsel submitted that such an attack on the privacy of the Petitioner was not only a violation of his fundamental right, but also amounted to chilling his freedom of speech as a journalist.  Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on 22. behalf of  the   Petitioner  in Writ Petition  (C) No.  829  of  2021, supported   the   prayer   made   by   Mr.   Kapil   Sibal   regarding   the constitution   of   an   independent   Special   Investigation   Team headed by a retired Judge to investigate the matter.  23. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 909 of 2021, wherein Petitioner No. 1 is a journalist, lawyer and human rights activist   who   is   an   affected   party,   while   Petitioner   No.   2   is   a registered society which works on the promotion and protection of digital rights and digital freedom in India, submitted that a number of such digital interceptions were being conducted by the States and the Respondent­Union of India. He submitted that, in light of the allegations raised against the Respondent­Union of India in the present matter, it would not be appropriate to allow the   Respondent­Union   of   India   to   form   a   Committee   to 15 investigate the present allegations. Further, the learned senior counsel   pointed   to   the   actions   taken   by   various   foreign governments in light of the purported spyware attack to highlight the veracity of the reports by news agencies and the seriousness with which the allegations were being viewed in other countries.   Mr. M. L. Sharma, petitioner­in­person in Writ Petition (Crl.) 24. No. 314 of 2021, submitted that the Pegasus suite of spywares was different from other spyware as it allowed an agency to gain complete control over an individual’s device. He submitted that the   software   could   be   used   to   plant   false   evidence   into   an individual’s device, which could then be used to implicate the said   person.   He   therefore   submitted   that   the   alleged   use   of Pegasus on the citizens of the country, was of grave concern.     The learned Solicitor General rebutted the arguments of the 25. Petitioners and submitted that there was no reason to question the credibility of any Committee that might be constituted by the Respondent­Union of India as only experts independent of any association with the Respondent­Union of India would be a part of   the   same.   He   further   stated   that   all   technologies   had   the capability of either being used or abused, and it could not be said that   the   use   of   such   a   software   was   per   se   impermissible, 16 particularly when a robust legal mechanism existed to check the use of the same. He finally reiterated that this Court should allow the   Respondent­Union   of   India   to   constitute   an   Expert Committee which would be under its supervision. 26. We have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners, Petitioner­in­person, and the learned Solicitor General for the Respondent­Union of India. At the outset, certain nuances of the right to privacy in 27. India­   its   facets   and   importance,   need   to   be   discussed. Historically,   privacy   rights   have   been   ‘property   centric’   rather than people centric. This approach was seen in both the United States of America as well as in England. In 1604, in the historical case, 77 ER 194 (KB)   it was famously held that Semayne’s   “ every man’s house is his castle ”. This marked the beginning of the development of the law protecting people against unlawful warrants and searches.  1 As William Pitt, the Earl of Chatham stated in March 1763 : 28. “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot   enter!—all   his   force   dares   not   cross   the threshold of the ruined tenement!”  1 Lord Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen who Flourished in the Time of George III First Series , Vol. 1 (1845). 17 29. As   long   back   as   in   1890,   Samuel   Warren   and   Louis Brandeis   observed   in   their   celebrated   article   ‘The   Right   to 2 Privacy’ :  “Recent   inventions   and   business   methods   call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection   of   the   person,   and   for   securing   to   the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right “to be let alone.”…numerous   mechanical   devices   threaten   to make good the prediction that “what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house­tops.”  30. However,   unlike   the   ‘property   centric’   origin   of   privacy rights   in   England   and   under   the   Fourth   Amendment   in   the Constitution of the United States of America, in India, privacy rights may be traced to the ‘right to life’ enshrined under Article 21   of   the   Constitution.   When   this   Court   expounded   on   the meaning of “life” under Article 21, it did not restrict the same in a pedantic manner. An expanded meaning has been given to the right to life in India, which accepts that “life” does not refer to mere   animal   existence   but   encapsulates   a   certain   assured quality. 31. It is in this context that we must contextualize the issues that are being raised in this batch of petitions. We live in the era of information revolution, where the entire lives of individuals are 2 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy , H ARVARD L AW R EVIEW , Vol. 4 (5), 193 (Dec. 15, 1890). 18 stored in the cloud or in a digital dossier. We must recognize that while technology is a useful tool for improving the lives of the people, at the same time, it can also be used to breach that sacred private space of an individual.  32. Members of a civilized democratic society have a reasonable expectation of  privacy.  Privacy is  not the  singular  concern of journalists or social activists. Every citizen of India ought to be protected   against   violations   of   privacy.   It   is   this   expectation which enables us to exercise our choices, liberties, and freedom. This Court in  K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy­9J.) v. Union of India , (2017) 10 SCC 1,  has recognized that the right to privacy is as sacrosanct   as   human   existence   and   is   inalienable   to   human dignity and autonomy. This Court held that: “320. Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the guarantee of life and   personal   liberty   in   Article   21   of   the Constitution.   Elements   of   privacy   also   arise   in varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III. … 325.   Like   other   rights   which   form   part   of   the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy   is   not   an   absolute   right.   A   law   which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the 19 touchstone   of   permissible   restrictions   on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just   and   reasonable.   The  law  must   also   be  valid with   reference   to   the   encroachment   on   life   and personal liberty under Article 21.  An invasion of life   or   personal   liberty   must   meet   the   threefold   requirement   of   (   i  )   legality,   which   postulates   the   existence of law; (   ) need, defined in terms of a ii     legitimate   State   aim;   and   (       iii )   proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.” ( ) emphasis supplied 33. Although declared to be inalienable, the right to privacy of course   cannot   be   said   to   be   an   absolute,   as   the   Indian Constitution does not provide for such a right without reasonable restrictions. As with all the other fundamental rights, this Court therefore must recognize that certain limitations exist when it comes to the right to privacy as well. However, any restrictions imposed must necessarily pass constitutional scrutiny. 

considered the need to protect the privacy interests of individuals while furthering legitimate State interests. This Court therefore directed the State to embark upon the exercise of balancing of competing interests. This Court observed as follows: “310.While   it   intervenes   to   protect   legitimate 20 State  interests,  the  State  must  nevertheless   put into   place   a   robust   regime   that   ensures   the fulfilment of a threefold requirement. These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not just informational privacy). They emanate from the procedural and  content­based  mandate of Article 21.  The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an  encroachment  on privacy is an express requirement of Article 21. For, no person can be deprived of  his life or  personal liberty except  in accordance with the procedure established by law. The existence of law is an essential requirement. Second, the requirement of a need, in terms of a legitimate State aim, ensures that the nature and content of the law which imposes the restriction falls within the zone of reasonableness mandated by Article 14, which is a guarantee against arbitrary State action. The pursuit of a legitimate State aim ensures that the law does not suffer   from   manifest   arbitrariness.   Legitimacy,   as   a postulate, involves a value judgment. Judicial review does   not   reappreciate   or   second   guess   the   value judgment of the legislature but is for deciding whether the aim which is sought to be pursued suffers from palpable   or   manifest   arbitrariness.   The   third requirement   ensures   that   the   means   which   are adopted by the legislature are proportional to the object and needs sought to be fulfilled by the law. Proportionality   is   an   essential   facet   of   the guarantee against arbitrary State action because it ensures   that   the   nature   and   quality   of   the encroachment on the right is not disproportionate to   the   purpose   of   the   law.   Hence,   the   threefold requirement for a valid law arises out of the mutual interdependence   between   the   fundamental guarantees against arbitrariness on the one hand and the protection of life and personal liberty, on the   other.   The   right   to   privacy,   which   is   an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty, and the freedoms embodied in Part III is subject to the 21 same restraints which apply to those freedoms.” ( emphasis supplied ) 35. The   right   to   privacy   is   directly   infringed   when   there   is surveillance or spying done on an individual, either by the State or   by   any   external   agency.   Ellen   Alderman   and   Caroline 3 Kennedy, in ‘Right to Privacy’,  foresaw this threat to privacy in 1995,   while   referring   to   governmental   eavesdropping   in   the United States of America, in the following words: “Perhaps the scariest threat to privacy comes in the area known as “informational privacy”.   Information about all of us is now collected not only by the old standbys, the IRS and FBI, but also by the MTB, MIB, NCOA,   and   NCIC,  as  well  as  credit  bureaus,  credit unions,   and   credit   card   companies.     We   now   have cellular   phones,   which   are   different   from   cordless phones,   which   are   different   from   what   we   used   to think of as phones.  We worry about e­mail, voice mail, and junk mail.   And something with the perky name Clipper   Chip   ­   developed   specifically   to   allow governmental   eavesdropping   on   coded   electronic communications – is apparently the biggest threat of all.” 36. Of course, if done by the State, the same must be justified on constitutional grounds. This Court is cognizant of the State’s interest to ensure that life and liberty is preserved and must balance the same. For instance, in today’s world, information gathered   by   intelligence   agencies   through   surveillance   is essential for the fight against violence and terror. To access this 3 Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy, T HE R IGHT TO P RIVACY , 223 (1995). 22 information,   a   need   may   arise   to   interfere   with   the   right   to privacy of an individual, provided it is carried out only when it is absolutely necessary for protecting national security/interest and is   proportional.   The   considerations   for   usage   of   such   alleged technology, ought to be evidence based. In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by following   the   procedure   established   by   law   under   the Constitution. 37. This trade­off between the right to privacy of an individual and the security interests of the State, has been recognized world 4 over with the renowned scholar  Daniel Solove   commenting on the same as follows: “The debate between privacy and security has been framed incorrectly, with the trade­off between these values   understood   as   an   all­or­nothing   proposition. But protecting privacy need not be fatal to security measures;   it   merely   demands   oversight   and regulation.   We   can’t   progress   in   the   debate between privacy and security because the debate .  itself is flawed The   law   suffers   from   related   problems.   It   seeks   to balance privacy and security, but systematic problems plague the way the balancing takes place….  4  Daniel J. Solove, N OTHING   TO  H IDE : T HE  F ALSE  T RADEOFF   BETWEEN  P RIVACY   AND  S ECURITY   (2011). 23 Privacy often can be protected without undue cost to security.   In   instances   when   adequate   compromises can’t   be   achieved,   the   trade­off   can   be   made   in   a manner   that  is   fair   to  both  sides.   We   can  reach  a better balance between privacy and security. We must. There is too much at stake to fail.” ( ) emphasis supplied 38. Somewhat allied to the concerns of privacy, is the freedom of the press.  Certain observations made by this Court in the case of   Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited v. may be extracted: Union of India,   (1985) 1 SCC 641  “25.  The freedom of press, as one of the members of the   Constituent  Assembly   said,   is   one   of   the   items around   which   the   greatest   and   the   bitterest   of constitutional   struggles   have   been   waged   in   all countries where liberal constitutions prevail. The said freedom   is   attained   at   considerable   sacrifice   and suffering and ultimately it has come to be incorporated in the various written constitutions…” 39. It is undeniable that surveillance and the knowledge that one is under the threat of being spied on can affect the way an individual decides to exercise his or her rights. Such a scenario might   result   in   self­censorship.   This   is   of   particular   concern when it relates to the freedom of the press, which is an important pillar of democracy. Such chilling effect on the freedom of speech is   an  assault   on   the   vital   public­watchdog   role   of   the   press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate 24 and   reliable   information.   Recently,   in   the   case   of   Anuradha ,   (2020)   3   SCC   637,   this   Court Bhasin   v.   Union   of   India highlighted the importance of freedom of the press in a modern democracy in the following words:   In   this   context,   one   possible   test   of   chilling “159.   effect is comparative harm.   In this framework, the Court   is   required   to   see   whether   the   impugned restrictions, due to their broad­based nature, have had   a   restrictive   effect   on   similarly   placed individuals during the period.  It is the contention of the petitioner that she was not able to publish her newspaper from 6­8­2019 to 11­10­2019. However, no evidence was put forth to establish that such other individuals   were   also   restricted   in   publishing newspapers in the area. Without such evidence having been   placed   on   record,   it   would   be   impossible   to distinguish a legitimate claim of chilling effect from a mere emotive argument for a self­serving purpose. On the   other   hand,   the   learned   Solicitor   General   has submitted   that   there   were   other   newspapers   which were running during the aforesaid time period. In view of   these   facts,   and   considering   that   the   aforesaid petitioner   has   now   resumed   publication,   we   do   not deem it fit to indulge more in the issue than to state that responsible Governments are required to respect the freedom of the press at all times.  Journalists are to be accommodated in reporting and there is no justification for allowing a sword of Damocles to hang over the press indefinitely .” ( emphasis supplied ) 40. An important and necessary corollary of such a right is to ensure the   protection  of  sources  of   information.  Protection  of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom 25 of the press. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest.  41. Having   regard   to   the   importance   of   the   protection   of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potential chilling effect that snooping techniques may have, this Court’s task in the present matter, where certain grave allegations of infringement of the rights of the citizens of the country have been raised, assumes great significance. In this light, this Court is compelled to take up the cause to determine the truth and get to the bottom of the allegations made herein. 42. Initially, this Court was not satisfied with the Writ Petitions that were filed as the same were completely reliant only upon certain newspaper reports. This Court has generally attempted to discourage Writ Petitions, particularly Public Interest Litigations, which   are   based   entirely   on   newspaper   reports   without   any additional steps taken by the Petitioner. In this respect, it may be relevant to quote the observations of this Court in the case of , (2005) 13 SCC 702,  which are Rohit Pandey v. Union of India as follows: “ 1.   …The   only basis for the petitioner coming to 26 this   Court   are   two   newspaper   reports   dated 25­1­2004,   and   the   other   dated   12­2­2004.   This petition was immediately filed on 16­2­2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared…. 2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal   profession,   it   would   be   filed   with   all seriousness   and   after   doing   the   necessary homework and enquiry.  If the petitioner is so public­ spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition   that   the   investigation   be   conducted   by   the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures   were   taken   by   the   petitioner.   There   is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two­three days of the second publication dated 12­2­2004, in the newspaper   Amar   Ujala.   Further,   the   State   of   Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7­ 10­2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused   persons,   including   the   submission   of   the charge­sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even   controverted   what   is   stated   in   the   affidavit. Ordinarily,   we   would   have   dismissed   such   a misconceived   petition   with   exemplary   costs   but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner.” ( emphasis supplied ) 43. While we understand that the allegations  made in these petitions pertain to matters about which ordinary citizens would 27 not have information except for the investigating reporting done by news agencies, looking to the quality of some of the petitions filed, we are constrained to observe that individuals should not file half­baked petitions merely on a few newspaper reports. Such an   exercise,   far   from   helping   the   cause   espoused   by   the individual filing the petition, is often detrimental to the cause itself. This is because the Court will not have proper assistance in the matter, with the burden to even determine preliminary facts being left to the Court. It is for this reason that trigger happy filing of such petitions in Courts, and more particularly in this   Court  which   is   to   be   the   final   adjudicatory   body   in   the country, needs to be discouraged. This should not be taken to mean that the news agencies are not trusted by the Court, but to emphasize the role that each pillar of democracy occupies in the polity. News agencies report facts and bring to light issues which might otherwise not be publicly known. These may then become the basis for further action taken by an active and concerned civil   society,   as   well   as   for   any   subsequent   filings   made   in Courts. But newspaper reports, in and of themselves, should not in the ordinary course be taken to be ready­made pleadings that may be filed in Court.  28 44. That   said,   after   we   indicated   our   reservations   to   the Petitioners regarding the lack of material, various other petitions have   been   filed   in   Court,   including   by   individuals   who   were purportedly victims of the alleged Pegasus spyware attack. These subsequently   filed   petitions,   as   well   as   additional   documents filed by others, have brought on record certain materials that cannot   be   brushed   aside,   such   as   the   reports   of   reputed organizations   like   Citizen   Lab   and   affidavits   of   experts. Additionally,   the   sheer   volume   of   cross­referenced   and   cross­ verified reports from various reputable news organizations across the world along with the reactions of foreign governments and legal institutions also moved us to consider that this is a case where the jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised. Of course, the   learned   Solicitor   General   suggested   that   many   of   these reports   are   motivated   and   self­serving.   However,   such   an omnibus   oral   allegation   is   not   sufficient   to   desist   from interference. It is for this reason that this Court issued notice to the 45. Respondent­Union of India and sought information from them. We would like to re­emphasize what is already apparent from the record of proceedings. This Court gave ample opportunity to the 29 Respondent­Union   of   India   to   clarify   its   stand   regarding   the allegations raised, and to provide information to assist the Court regarding the various actions taken by it over the past two years, since the first disclosed alleged Pegasus spyware attack. We had made it clear to the learned Solicitor General on many occasions that we would not push the Respondent­Union of India to provide any information that may affect the national security concerns of the   country.   However,   despite   the   repeated   assurances   and opportunities   given,   ultimately   the   Respondent­Union   of   India has placed on record what they call a “limited affidavit”, which does not shed any light on their stand or provide any clarity as to the facts of the matter at hand. If the Respondent­Union of India had   made   their   stand   clear   it   would   have   been   a   different situation, and the burden on us would have been different.  46. Such a course of action taken by the Respondent­Union of India,   especially   in   proceedings   of   the   present   nature   which touches   upon   the   fundamental   rights   of   the   citizens   of   the country,   cannot   be   accepted.   As   held   by   this   Court   in   Ram Jethmalani   v.   Union   of   India,   (2011)   8   SCC   1 ,   the Respondent­Union   of   India   should   not   take   an   adversarial position when the fundamental rights of citizens are at threat. 30 This Court in that case observed as follows: In order that the right guaranteed by clause (1) of “75.  Article   32   be   meaningful,   and   particularly   because such   petitions   seek   the   protection   of   fundamental rights, it is imperative that in such proceedings the petitioners are not denied the information necessary for them to properly articulate the case and be heard, especially where such information is in the possession of   the   State.   To   deny   access   to   such   information, without   citing   any   constitutional   principle   or enumerated   grounds   of   constitutional   prohibition, would be to thwart the right granted by clause (1) of Article 32. Further, inasmuch as, by history and tradition of 76.  common law, judicial proceedings are substantively, though   not   necessarily   fully,   adversarial,   both parties bear the responsibility of placing all the relevant information,  analyses, and facts before this   Court   as   completely   as   possible.   In   most situations, it is the State which may have more comprehensive information   that is relevant to the matters at hand in such proceedings... 77.  It is necessary for us to note that the burden of asserting, and proving, by relevant evidence a claim in   judicial   proceedings   would   ordinarily   be   placed upon the proponent of such a claim; however,   the burden   of   protection   of   fundamental   rights   is primarily   the   duty   of   the   State.   Consequently, unless   constitutional   grounds   exist,   the   State may not act in a manner that hinders this Court from   rendering   complete   justice   in   such .   Withholding   of   information   from   the proceedings petitioners, or seeking to cast the relevant events and facts in a light favourable to the State in the context of   the   proceedings,   even   though   ultimately detrimental   to   the   essential   task   of   protecting fundamental   rights,   would   be   destructive   to   the 31 guarantee in clause (1) of Article 32… 78.   In   the   task   of   upholding   of   fundamental rights,   the   State   cannot   be   an   adversary.   The State  has  the  duty,  generally,  to  reveal  all  the facts   and   information   in   its   possession   to   the Court,   and   also   provide   the   same   to   the petitioners.  This is so, because the petitioners would also then be enabled to bring to light facts and the law that may be relevant for the Court in rendering its   decision.   In   proceedings   such   as   those   under Article 32, both the petitioner and the State, have to necessarily   be   the   eyes   and   ears   of   the   Court. Blinding   the   petitioner   would   substantially   detract from the integrity of the process of judicial decision­ making in Article 32 proceedings, especially where the issue is of upholding of fundamental rights. ” ( emphasis supplied ) 47. This free flow of information from the Petitioners and the State, in a writ proceeding before the Court, is an important step towards Governmental transparency  and  openness,  which  are celebrated values under our Constitution, as recognized by this Court recently in the  Anuradha Bhasin  ( supra )  judgment . 48. Of course, there may be circumstances where the State has a constitutionally defensible reason for denying access to certain information or divulging certain information as was recognized by this Court in the   case, as extracted Ram Jethmalani   ( supra )   below: “80.  Withholding   of   information   from   the 32 petitioners by the State , thereby constraining their freedom of speech and expression before this Court, may be premised only on the exceptions carved out, in clause (2) of Article 19, “in the interests of the   sovereignty   and   integrity   of   India,   the security   of   the   State,   friendly   relations   with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement   to   an   offence”   or   by   law   that demarcate exceptions, provided that such a law comports with the enumerated grounds in clause (2)   of   Article   19 ,   or   that   may   be   provided   for elsewhere in the Constitution.” ( ) emphasis supplied It is on the strength of the above exception carved out that 49. the Respondent­Union of India has justified its non­submission of a detailed counter affidavit,  viz. , by citing security concerns. It is a settled position of law that in matters pertaining to national security, the scope of judicial review is limited. However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of “national security” is raised. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although this Court should be circumspect in encroaching upon the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial review. 50. Of course, the Respondent­Union of India may decline to provide   information   when   constitutional   considerations   exist, 33 such as those pertaining to the security of the State, or when there is a specific immunity under a specific statute. However, it is incumbent on the State to not only specifically plead such constitutional concern or statutory immunity but they must also prove and justify the same in Court on affidavit. The Respondent­ Union of India must necessarily plead and prove the facts which indicate that the information sought must be kept secret as their divulgence would affect national security concerns. They must justify   the   stand   that   they   take   before   a   Court.   The   mere invocation of national security by the State does not render the Court a mute spectator.  In   the   present   matter,   as   we   have   indicated   above,   the 51. Petitioners have placed on record certain material that   prima merits   consideration   by   this   Court.   There   has   been   no facie   specific denial of any of the facts averred by the Petitioners by the Respondent­Union of India. There has only been an omnibus and   vague   denial   in   the   “limited   affidavit”   filed   by   the Respondent­Union of India, which cannot be sufficient. In such circumstances, we have no option but to accept the  prima facie case   made   out   by   the   Petitioners   to   examine   the   allegations made.  34 52. Different   forms   of   surveillance   and   data   gathering   by intelligence agencies to fight terrorism, crime and corruption in national   interest   and/or   for   national   security,   are   accepted norms all over the world.  The Petitioners do not contend that the State   should   not   resort   to   surveillance/collection   of   data   in matters of national security. The complaint of the Petitioners is about the misuse or likely misuse of spyware in violation of the right to privacy of citizens. The Respondent­Union of India also does   not   contend   that   its   agencies   can   resort   to surveillance/collection   of   data   relating   to   its   citizens   where national   security   and   national   interest   are   not   involved.   The apprehension   of   the   Respondent­Union   of   India   is   that   any inquiry in this behalf should not jeopardize national security and the steps taken by it to protect national security. There is thus a broad   consensus   that   unauthorized   surveillance/accessing   of stored data from the phones and other devices of citizens for reasons   other   than   nation’s   security   would   be   illegal, objectionable and a matter of concern. 53. The only question that remains then is what the appropriate remedy in this case would be. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) 35 No.   849   of   2021   sought   an   interim   order   from   this   Court directing   the   Cabinet   Secretary   to   put   certain   facts   on   an affidavit. On the other hand, most of the other senior counsel appearing   on   behalf   of   the   other   Writ   Petitioners   sought   an independent   investigation   or   inquiry   into   the   allegations pertaining to the use of Pegasus software either by constituting a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired judge or by a Judges’ Committee.  54. We   are   of   the   opinion   that   in   the   circumstances   of   the present case, when the Respondent­Union of India has already been given multiple opportunities to file an affidavit on record, and looking to the conduct of the Respondent­Union of India in not placing on record any facts through their reliance on the “national security” defense, no  useful purpose would be served by issuing directions of the nature sought by Mr. Shyam Divan, apart from causing a further delay in proceedings.  55. Instead, we are inclined to pass an order appointing an Expert Committee whose functioning will be overseen by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. Such a course of action has been adopted by this Court in various other circumstances when the Court found it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to 36 probe   the   truth   or   falsity   of   certain   allegations,   taking   into account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature of   the   large­scale   violation   of   the   fundamental   rights   of   the citizens of the country [ ( ); See Ram Jethmalani   supra   Extra­ Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India , (2013) 2 SCC 493;  G.S. Mani v. Union of India,  order dated 12.12.2019 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 348 of 2019].  56. The compelling circumstances that have weighed with us to pass such an order are as follows: i. Right to privacy and freedom of speech are alleged to be impacted, which needs to be examined. ii. The entire citizenry is affected by such allegations due to the potential chilling effect. iii. No clear stand taken by the Respondent­Union of India regarding actions taken by it. Seriousness   accorded   to   the   allegations   by   foreign iv. countries and involvement of foreign parties. Possibility that some foreign authority, agency or private v. entity is involved in placing citizens of this country under surveillance. vi. Allegations that the Union or State Governments are party 37 to the rights’ deprivations of the citizens.  vii. Limitation   under   writ   jurisdiction   to   delve   into   factual aspects. For instance, even the question of usage of the technology on citizens, which is the jurisdictional fact, is disputed and requires further factual examination. 57. It is for reason  (vi)  above that we decline the Respondent­ Union   of   India’s   plea   to   allow   them   to   appoint   an   Expert Committee for the purposes of investigating the allegations, as such a course of action would violate the settled judicial principle against bias,  i.e. , that ‘ justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done’ .  58. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to state that in this world of conflicts, it was an extremely uphill task to find and select experts who are free from prejudices, are independent and competent. Rather than relying upon any Government agencies or any, we have constituted the Committee and shortlisted expert members   based   on   biodatas   and   information   collected independently.   Some   of   the   candidates   politely   declined   this assignment, while others had some conflict of interest. With our best intentions and efforts, we have shortlisted and chosen the most renowned experts available to be a part of the Committee. 38 Additionally, we have also left it to the discretion of the learned overseeing judge to take assistance from any expert, if necessary, to ensure absolute transparency and efficiency, as directed in paragraph 62(3). 59. With   the   above   observations,   we   constitute   a   Technical Committee comprising of three members, including those who are   experts   in   cyber   security,   digital   forensics,   networks   and hardware, whose functioning will be overseen by Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge, Supreme Court of India. The learned overseeing Judge will be assisted in this task by:  i. Mr. Alok Joshi, former IPS officer (1976 batch) who has immense and diverse investigative experience and technical   knowledge.   He   has   worked   as   the   Joint Director,   Intelligence   Bureau,   the   Secretary(R), Research and Analysis Wing and Chairman, National Technical Research Organisation.  ii. Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 (International   Organisation   of   Standardisation/ International   Electro­Technical   Commission/Joint Technical   Committee),   a   sub­committee   which develops and facilitates standards within the field of 39 software products and systems. Dr. Oberoi is also a part of the Advisory Board of Cyber Security Education and   Research   Centre   at   Indraprastha   Institute   of Information   Technology,   Delhi.   He   is   globally recognized as a cyber security expert. The   three   members   Technical   Committee   [ hereinafter 60. referred to as the  “Committee” ] shall comprise of: i. Dr.   Naveen   Kumar   Chaudhary,   Professor   (Cyber Security   and   Digital   Forensics)   and   Dean,   National Forensic   Sciences   University,   Gandhinagar,   Gujarat. Dr. Chaudhary has over two decades of experience as an   academician,   cyber   security   enabler   and   cyber security expert. He specializes in cyber security policy, network   vulnerability   assessment   and   penetration testing.  ii. Dr. Prabaharan P., Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala. He has   two   decades   of   experience   in  computer   science and security areas. His areas of interest are malware detection,   critical   infrastructural   security,   complex binary   analysis,   AI   and   machine   learning.   He   has 40 many publications in reputed journals. iii. Dr.  Ashwin Anil  Gumaste,  Institute  Chair  Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra. He has been granted 20 US patents and has published over 150 papers and authored 3 books in his field. He has received several National awards including the Vikram Sarabhai Research Award (2012) and Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology (2018). He has also held the position of Visiting Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. 61. The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows: A. To enquire, investigate and determine:  i. Whether   the   Pegasus   suite   of   spyware   was   used   on phones or other devices of the citizens of India to access stored   data,   eavesdrop   on   conversations,   intercept information and/or for any other purposes not explicitly stated herein? ii. The details of the victims and/or persons affected by such a spyware attack. 41 iii. What   steps/actions   have   been   taken   by   the Respondent­Union of India after reports were published in the year 2019 about hacking of WhatsApp accounts of Indian citizens, using the Pegasus suite of spyware.  iv. Whether any Pegasus suite of spyware was acquired by the   Respondent­Union   of   India,   or   any   State Government,   or   any   central   or   state   agency   for   use against the citizens of India?  v. If any governmental agency has used the Pegasus suite of spyware on the citizens of this country, under what law, rule, guideline, protocol or lawful procedure was such deployment made? vi. If any domestic entity/person has used the spyware on the   citizens   of   this   country,   then   is   such   a   use authorised? vii. Any other matter or aspect which may be connected, ancillary or incidental to the above terms of reference, which   the   Committee   may   deem   fit   and   proper   to investigate. B. To make recommendations:  i. Regarding   enactment   or   amendment   to   existing   law and   procedures   surrounding   surveillance   and   for 42 securing improved right to privacy. ii. Regarding enhancing and improving the cyber security of the nation and its assets.  iii. To ensure prevention of invasion of citizens’ right to privacy,   otherwise   than   in   accordance   with   law,   by State   and/or   non­State   entities   through   such spywares. iv. Regarding   the   establishment   of   a   mechanism   for citizens   to   raise   grievances   on   suspicion   of   illegal surveillance of their devices. v. Regarding   the   setting   up   of   a   well­equipped independent   premier   agency   to   investigate   cyber security vulnerabilities, for threat assessment relating to   cyberattacks   and   to   investigate   instances   of cyberattacks in the country. vi. Regarding any  ad­hoc   arrangement that may be made by this Court as an interim measure for the protection of citizen’s rights, pending filling up of lacunae by the Parliament. vii. On any other ancillary matter that the Committee may deem fit and proper. 43 62. The Procedure of the Committee shall be as follows: (1) The Committee constituted by this Order is authorised to ­ (a) devise its own procedure to effectively implement and answer the Terms of Reference; (b) hold such enquiry or investigation as it deems fit;and (c) take statements of any person in connection with the enquiry and call for the records of any authority or individual. (2)  Justice R. V. Raveendran, former Judge, Supreme Court of India will oversee the functioning of the Committee with respect to the methodology to be adopted, procedure to be followed, enquiry and investigation that is carried out and preparation of the report. (3) The   learned   overseeing   Judge   is   at   liberty   to   take   the assistance of any serving or retired officer(s), legal expert(s) or technical expert(s) in discharge of his functions. (4) We   request   the   learned   overseeing   Judge   to   fix   the honorarium   of   the   members   of   the   Committee   in consultation   with   them,   which   shall   be   paid   by   the Respondent­Union of India immediately. 44 (5) The   Respondent­Union   of   India   and   all   the   State Governments, as well as agencies/authorities under them, are   directed   to   extend   full   facilities,   including   providing support  with   respect  to   infrastructure   needs,   manpower, finances, or any other matter as may be required   by the Committee or the overseeing former Judge to effectively and expeditiously carry out the task assigned to them by this

Registrar, Supreme Court of India, is directed to coordinate between the Committee, the learned overseeing Judge and the Central/State Governments to facilitate communication and ensure smooth functioning and expeditious response to,   and   implementation   of,   requests   made   by   the Committee, the learned overseeing Judge or those named in

thorough inquiry and place it before this Court, expeditiously.   45 64. List the matter after 8 weeks.        ...........................................CJI.                 (N.V. RAMANA)  ..............................................J.    (SURYA KANT) ..............................................J.   (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 27, 2021 46