A Delhi Court has recently held that since there is no statutory exemption for journalists, they can be compelled to reveal their “sources” to investigating agencies if the disclosure of the source is essential and vital to the investigation proceedings.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Anjani Mahajan of Rouse Avenue Courts vide order dated January 17, 2023, rejected the closure report filed by the Central bureau of Investigation (CBI) as they had chosen not to take the investigation to its logical conclusion owing to the leak of the initial report.

Facts of the case: The CBI had conducted a preliminary enquiry into the assets/wealth acquired by Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members as directed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, a status report based on the evidence collected was prepared and placed in two sealed cover envelopes before the Supreme Court and a day before the final hearing before the court, the Times of India (New Delhi) published a news article captioned “CBI may admit Mulayam was framed-DIG’s internal note says agency had not verified in PIL”. This news was also aired on Star News and CCN-IBN.

The CBI thus filed an FIR under sections 120B read with 469, 500 and 471 of the IPC against unknown persons for preparing a fake and fabricated report to tarnish the reputation of CBI. It was alleged in the complaint that these unknown persons during the year 2008-2009 entered into criminal conspiracy and with the intent to commit forgery for purpose of harming the reputation of the CBI and CBI officers, used as genuine, a forged document, printed/aired false and fabricated news in newspapers/on TV channels. It stated that they surreptitiously collected some documents relating to the enquiry conducted by CBI.

Further, defamation cases were also filed against the newspaper and news channels.

Sources of journalists

Coming to the point of journalists and their sources, the court held,

Merely because the concerned journalists denied to reveal their respective sources, as stated in the final report, the investigating agency should not have put a halt to the entire investigation.

The court while observing that there is no statutory exemption in India to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies, held that “investigating agency can always bring to the notice of the concerned journalists the requirement of disclosure of the source being essential and vital to the investigation proceedings”. Further the court also pointed out that the CBI was well within its power and was fully equipped under IPC and CrPC (section 91) to require the public persons to mandatorily join in an investigation where the investigating agency is of the opinion that such public persons are privy to any facts or circumstances pertaining to the case under investigation and public persons are under a legal duty to so join the investigation.

17. Further enquiry is required to be conducted from the concerned journalists on the aspect of their respective source from whom they received the purported impugned forged documents which became the basis of their respective news items

The court also said that investigation is “required to be carried out by the CBI on the modus operandi adopted by the culprits for gaining access to/obtaining the official documents including probing involvement of any insider in the acts alleged and preparing the alleged forged 17 pages review note.”

The Delhi Court’s order may be read here:

Other Instances of Court Interpretation

Bengaluru

On January 5, Bengaluru Police issued a notice to founder and editor of news portal, The File, G.Mahantesh as it had published to an e-office file noting of the Karnataka Education Department. The Bengaluru Cybercrime Police asked Mahantesh to reveal the source of the document on which the story was based along with the identity, name, address and ID card of the source, reported LiveLaw.

The file pertained to the reinstatement of an accused in the teacher recruitment scam as managing director of the Karnataka Text Book Society.

Delhi High Court’s take

In Jai Parkash Aggarwal vs Vishambhar Dutt Sharma 30 (1986) DLT 21, the Delhi High Court held that “Press does not have an absolute privilege not to disclose the source of information on the basis of which the news item has been published.” (para 5)

However, it also held that journalists neither have absolute immunity nor any obligation to disclose their source.

The court held thus,

Before the Court directs the disclosure of source it must satisfy itself that it is in the nature of justice and is not against the public interest It will necessarily depend on the nature of the case and the offending item of the news published. (para 5)

Supreme Court’s take

In October 2021, a bench led by CJI NV Ramana in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 314 OF 2021 (order dated October 27, 2021) observed that an important and necessary corollary of freedom of press is to ensure the protection of sources of information.

40… Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom of press. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest.

In the order, the court gave due regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society. While referring to the snooping of Pegasus software it said that it could have a potential chilling effect. The court’s observation cannot be taken as obiter dictum since the same was essential to the final decision which was to set up a technical committee to investigate the use of Pegasus upon certain individuals including journalists in the country. The petitioners in the case had alleged that Israeli-origin malware, Pegasus was used to target those who were vocal critics of the central government.

Press Council Act

The Press Council Act, section 15, speaks about the protection of journalistic sources. However, the same is with regards to any inquiry that is being made by the Press Council itself. Section 15 vests in the said Council  the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, subsection (2) of section 15 states thus,

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to compel any newspaper, news agency, editor or journalist to disclose the source of any news or information published by that newspaper or received or reported by that news agency, editor or journalist.

Thus, while it would wrong to say that journalist have no statutory sanction to protect their sources, the same is only in the context of an inquiry by the Press Council of India

Law Commission Report

There was the 93^rd Law Commission Report titled “Disclosure Of Sources Of Information By Mass Media” released in September 1983 headed by Justice KK Mathew. The commission had recommended insertion of an exception in the Indian Evidence Act:

“No court shall require a person to disclose the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, where such information has been obtained by him on the express agreement or implied understanding that the source will be kept confidential”.

Explanation.–In this section»-

(a) ‘publication’ means any speech, writing, broadcast or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

(b) “source” means the person from whom, or the means through which, the information was obtained”.

 The Commissions also opined that the matter should be left elastic, by vesting in the court a discretion in the matter. It said that the court, in each case, can balance the need to protect confidentiality of the source of the information against the interest of justice (general consideration), demands of national security, prevention of disorder and crime

International Courts

In Goodwin v. United Kingdom [Judgement of March 27, 1996, 22 EHRR 123] the European Court of Human Rights ruled by a vote of eleven to seven that an attempt to force a journalist to reveal his source for a news story violated Article 105 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was about a journalist who wanted to publish a story based on confidential information he received concerning the financial difficulties of a particular company. The information was derived from the company’s confidential financial plan, and was presumably stolen.

In December 1994, the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy of the Council of Europe adopted a Resolution on Journalistic Freedoms and Human Rights. 8 Principle 3(d) provides that the protection of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources enables journalists to contribute to the maintenance and development of genuine democracy.

In 1993, European Parliament (EP) passed The Resolution of the European Parliament on Confidentiality of Journalists’ Sources and the Right of Civil Servants to Disclose Information which stated that it believed in “the right of confidentiality for journalists’ sources is an important factor in improving and increasing the supply of information to the public, and that this right in practice also increases the transparency of decision-making procedure, strengthening the democratization of the Community institutions and governmental bodies in the member States, and is inextricably linked to the freedom of information and the freedom of the press in the broadest sense lending substance to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, as defined in Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

Conclusion

While, the Supreme Court had made a general observation in terms of protecting journalists’ sources, it was with regards to the alleged snooping in their phones that could have compromised their sources and put them in a place of danger. As the revelation of sources in this case would indicate that the sources were being revealed to government agencies, as had been alleged.

The ruling of the Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate suggesting that CBI enforce the revealing of the source’s identity was in the interest of carrying out an investigation where a document relating to  an ongoing investigation was leaked. There may appear to be two sides to this. Any investigative journalist in criminal matters will have an insider source, who if revealed, will be reluctant to assist the journalist to retrieve information and if penalized, it will be a deterrent and no “official sources” will ever speak to any journalist fearing reprimand from investigating agencies. While the issue needs determination on a case-to-case basis, in the interest of justice, and needs to be interpreted judicially, any broad diktat could seriously harm freedom of expression that includes the right to investigative and independent journalism.

In a democracy like India, the freedom of press has been secured and safeguarded by courts over and over again for years. Since the Press is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy, to allow them to freely do their jobs is sacrosanct to maintain this freedom. Hence, it is important to read into the Supreme Court’s observations in the Pegasus matter.

However, taking into consideration the law Commission’ report which left it to the discretion of the court to consider this on a case-to-case basis, the ball is again in the “court”. While the report did recommend insertion of an exception to journalists in the Indian Evidence Act, the recommendation about giving courts discretion is contrary to the former recommendation.

Weighing in on the Supreme Court’s order, the Law Commission Report and the example of International Court (which dealt with a private company’s leaked information), it may be concluded that while journalists need immunity from revealing their sources for the most part,  on occasion, if the interest of justice in a particular instant arises, the decision may be up for judicial intervention in the absence of any specific statutory exception in this regard.

An absolute protection of journalist’s sources could also become detrimental to criminal justice. In the instance of leakage of copy of charge sheet in the Delhi violence case 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, Karkardooma addressed the “disturbing trend” of reporting exact contents of charge sheet calling it unjustified. The court said that if the charge sheet is reproduced as it is, even before the court has taken cognisance the question of leakage obviously arises. Before the court, the counsel appearing for Pinjra Tod members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal submitted that TV channels and newspapers were quoting the charge sheet in their reports. He cited a Times Now report where sections of the supplementary charge sheet were quoted and he added that the police were leaking the same to the media.

The Delhi Court, in the same matter, had pulled up Delhi Police was not being able to identify who leaked the supplementary charge sheet to the media. However, the news channel  that showcased the copy of chargesheet were not brought into the dock, thus leaving the jurisprudence in regards to revealing journalistic sources has been left in a vacuum, in this case particularly.

Related:

Tenets of free and fair trial are sacrosanct: Delhi court on media leak of chargesheet in violence case

Allegations are already established, says Delhi HC in media leak case

No criminality in journalist, Mohd Zubair’s tweet says Delhi Police to High Court

The post Do journalistic sources need protection? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Appalled by the attacks on seven journalists covering illegal hate activity in Delhi, the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) announced a DUJ Committee for Communal Harmony on April 5, 2022 to foster peace and amity. 

At its executive committee meeting, the DUJ condemned the attack on journalists at Burari ground where an unlawful Hindu Mahapanchayat meeting was held on April 3. Reporters recorded the hate speeches during this event until the mob attacked the group. Forcing them to delete the videos, the crowd beat two Muslim journalists Arbab Ali and Meer Faisal and molested a woman journalist, said the DUJ.

According to The Telegraph, another Muslim journalist was also present at the place along with Quint reporters Md Meherban, Meghnad Bose, Newslaundry reporters Ronak Bhat and a woman journalist who narrated her ordeal on Twitter.

I and @mdmeharban03 were beaten up because of our muslim identity by Hindu mob. Communal slurs were shouted on me at Hindu mahapanchayat at Burari ground in New Delhi. We had gone there to cover the event. We were called jihadis and attacked for being Muslims.

— Meer Faisal (@meerfaisal01) April 3, 2022

This happened in India’s capital Delhi. A Mahapanchayat was called where hate speech was raised against Muslims. Muslim journalists were attacked and could have been lynched. All in Delhi! 2/2

— Arbab Ali (@arbabali_jmi) April 3, 2022

“We demand that the culprits be arrested, both for targeting journalists and for making inciteful hate speeches to disrupt communal harmony in the city,” said General Secretary Sujata Modhak.

She called for a judicial enquiry against assailants and those organisers who are repeat offenders in crimes intended to disrupt the peaceful coexistence of citizens. The DUJ further criticized the Delhi Police for failing to stop the meeting despite claiming that they did not give permission for the same. Accordingly, the police failed to arrest the attackers and took away the journalists instead.

Hatemonger Yati Narsinghanand again spews venom against Muslims in Hindu mahapanchayat.Will @DelhiPolice @DCP_NorthWest take any action against it?
Or else there will be no charge on him,saying that he had laughed and said this#ArrestYatiNarsinghanand@yogitabhayana @dpkBopanna pic.twitter.com/0Jiham41zJ

— Razia Masood (@Razia_Masood) April 3, 2022

Related:

Hate Offender Yati Narsinghanand violates bail conditions, calls for communal violence
Delhi HC to hear ED’s response to Rana Ayyub’s plea against being put on a watchlist today
Uttar Pradesh: Journalists who reported on leaked question papers arrested
Bajrang Dal smells an opportunity in stirring the halal pot, pastes boycott posters

The post DUJ announces Committee for Communal Harmony to battle hate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Senior journalist Digvijay Singh, who works with Amar Ujala has been the talk of social media today. He has been taken into custody and has accused the Uttar Pradesh police of harrasing and torturing him after he filed news reports on how the UP Board’s 12th class English question paper had leaked. Even as he was being taken away, he has accused the administration of being corrupt. 

अमर उजाला के पत्रकार दिग्विजय सिंह ने बलिया ज़िला प्रशासन पर बेहद गंभीर आरोप लगाए हैं।

मुख्यमंत्री @myogiadityanath से आग्रह है कि पत्रकारों का उत्पीड़न करने वाले बलिया पुलिस प्रशासन के खिलाफ निष्पक्ष जाँच करवाई जाए। 2/2 pic.twitter.com/CDzMavYZqf

— Vinod Kapri (@vinodkapri) March 31, 2022

The Ballia edition of Amar Ujala had published the leaked paper in the morning of the day the examination was to be held from 2 P.M. The news report even carried the coded serial numbers 316 ED and 316 EI. A day earlier on March 29, 2022 the paper had also published a solved copy of a Sanskrit question paper. It was reported that the Joint Director of Education Department of Azamgarh Division had accepted that the Sanskrit question paper was out in the investigation.

According to Singh, the UP police have been asking him from where he got the information. He replied, “From my sources,” speaking to fellow journalists when he was being taken into custody. 

He has levelled serious allegations on the Uttar Pradesh administration, especially those in charge in Ballia district. Instead of investigating the allegations of a paper leak as published in the news report, the UP Police have now arrested Amar Ujala journalists Digvijay Singh and Ajit Kumar Ojha from Ballia. According to news reports, another person identified as Manoj Gupta has also been picked up. It has been reported that so far, the administration has taken action against 22 accused in the leak case, including the two journalists.

GOOSEBUMPS !
जेल जाने से पहले किसी पत्रकार की कभी इतनी रीढ़ और हिम्मत देखी है ?

ये “अमर उजाला” के बलिया पत्रकार दिग्विजय सिंह हैं

इनका गुनाह ये है कि इन्होंने #PaperLeak ख़बर का खुलासा अपने अख़बार में किया था।पुलिस इनके दो और साथी अजीत ओझा,मनोज गुप्ता को भी जेल भेज चुकी है 1/2 pic.twitter.com/OI13qMwHTR

— Vinod Kapri (@vinodkapri) March 31, 2022

The English paper was to be held on March 30, but got cancelled in 24 districts after it was leaked. According to Satya Hindi, these districts are Ballia, Etah, Baghpat, Badaun, Sitapur, Kanpur Dehat, Lalitpur, Chitrakot, Pratapgarh, Gonda, Azamgarh, Agra, Varanasi, Mainpuri, Mathura, Aligarh, Ghaziabad, Shamli, Shahjahanpur, Unnao, Jalaun, Mahoba, Ambedkar Nagar and Gorakhpur.

DIOS of Balia district has been suspended by @UPGovt after paper of English for 12th #UPBoardExam was leaked. Probe has been transferred to @STF_oficial paper leak has led the UP Govt to cancel exam in the below mentioned districts.? @TheNewIndian_in pic.twitter.com/NN9ddrjBfM

— Pramod Kumar Singh (@SinghPramod2784) March 30, 2022

Now the police action against the journalists has raised questions on the police administration and the media fraternity staged a protest at Ballia Kotwali. Ajit Ojha’ has alleged that the police also misbehaved with him and brought him to the Balia Kotwali. He alleged that the administration also sought the ‘leaked question paper’ from him, and that the police dragged him to the police station “like a criminal”.

बलिया में अमर उजाला के पत्रकार अजित ओझा को थाने पर तीन घंटे तक इसलिए बैठाकर रोका गया कि उन्होंने पेपर लीक होने वाली खबर छाप दी। अजित बता रहे हैं कि हाईस्कूल का भी पेपर लीक हुआ, प्रशासन को बताया भी लेकिन उसी लीक पेपर पर परीक्षा ले ली गई। pic.twitter.com/Jlm0UawV7H https://t.co/TA0uKqG9X5

— Narsingh Shukla INC ?? #RahulTheNextPM (@_narsinghshukla) March 31, 2022

According to news reports this seems to be an attempt to divert attention and pin the blame on the journalists. The matter is being investigated by a special task force. The issue has also been raised by the Opposition leaders including Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi, BSP chief Mayawati and Aam Aadmi Party’s UP in-charge Sanjay Singh who have all accused the government for such corrupt practices.

Related:

Stop asking such questions… else it won’t be good for you: Ramdev to reporter
SC-appointed Committee recommends cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra
Poll Watch: Is Dr. Kafeel Khan the most watched MLC candidate in UP?
Kashmiri students charged with Sedition for cheering for Pakistan cricketers get bail
Hate-monger Sangeet Som’s Sena bristles at hate video
Hate Watch: Saffron flags greet Tejasvi Surya’s cycle rally outside mosque
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t! Muslim man lynched for chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ in UP?

The post Uttar Pradesh: Journalists who reported on leaked question papers arrested appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Alliance of Journalists (NAJ), Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ), the Kerala Union of Working Journalists(KUWJ), and the Press Club of India, held a protest meeting following the death by suicide of senior UNI photojournalist T. Kumar. The media association also raised the issue of increasing attacks on journalists’ rights and dignity. The Central government’s new accreditation policy was also discussed once again as many journalists have called it out as “being totally biased to end independent journalism and ensure a new era of government controlled journalism.” 

The DUJ at its Executive meeting also demanded that the UNI management pay compensation to Kumar’s family and also pay all his dues immediately, including his provident fund and salary backlog. They noted, “Persistent mismanagement by newspaper barons, who own UNI and continue to fight over its assets including extremely valuable land in the heart of New Delhi and several other places. Side by side government policies had ruined the finances of the news agency, by favouring other news agencies.” According to the union, the government “seemed to favour ANI, and some others and totally discriminate against UNI in particular and also PTI” . Even in Delhi, many journalists and press workers who had been associated with UNI are still awaiting dues.

An extended Executive meeting of the Delhi union of journalists, had also passed a a resolution on the death by suicide of UNI photo journalist T. Kumar. The DUJ Members wore black badges in protest and also expressed concern at the “loss of several jobs in various news establishments” enacted by managements of media houses “using Covid as an excuse for anti labour practises, forced retrenchments of journalists and press workers.” The protest meeting coordinated by veteran journalist and NAJ –DUJ president S.K.Pande was addressed by senior journalists including the Press Club of India President Umakant Lakhera, PCI General Secretary Vinay Kumar, DUJ General Secretary Sujata Madhok, former PCI general secretary Anant Bagaitkar, DUJ Vice President Pius Kumar Bajpai, former UNI Urdu chief Sheik Manzoor, PK Manikandhan KUWJ Delhi and others. 

The unions have demanded “a phased opening of the news offices with due Covid precautions and fast track courts to ensure due implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award for journalists and press workers.” The NAJ and the DUJ, castigated the “non-withdrawal of the anti labour codes of the Central government, increasingly being used as a threat to end the working journalist Act and various labour laws connected with journalists and press workers besides being a dark chapter to replace labour laws with pro corporate laws”. The unions also called for “wider mobilisation and solidarity with the Central Trade Unions protest against the Labour Codes on March 28-29 throughout the country.”

The media associations also expressed grave concern “against the continued imprisonment of Journalist Siddique Kappan, the arbitrary ban on MediaOne TV channel, and the increasing harassment of Journalists in Kashmir,” as well as targeting of scribes in Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.

Related

Photojournalist T Kumar’s death by sucide exposes the state of affairs at UNI
New press accreditation rules can be misused to punish journalists
Unique 5-day Satyagrah by UNI employees ends in the hope that dues will be paid

The post New Delhi: Journalists unions protest targeting, harassment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Correspondents, editors and photojournalists, who have been covering both Houses of Parliament, have called for a protest meeting on December 2, at the Press Club of India. The media fraternity is protesting the various restrictions on the entry of journalists into Parliament and the Press Gallery. The protest has been endorsed by Press Club of India, Editors Guild of India, Press Association, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Working News Cameraman Association and many other associations and unions of journalists.

The journalists will also submit a memorandum to the Speaker Lok Sabha and Chairman Rajya Sabha. The entry of mediapersons in Parliament has been restricted since early 2020 due to Covid-19. However it continues even now, even though all commercial spaces, including malls, restaurants, cinema halls, markets etc are now open to the public. Journalists can’t have any  access to media galleries in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and the Central Hall. Restricted entry is allowed for two days in a week, but journalists can only be on the Parliament premises, and have no access to the proceedings.

On November 27, journalists wrote an open letter to political leaders, and protested the restrictions on the media’s access to Parliament. According to the journalists, the Lok Sabha Speaker, had stated in a press conference in July, that there will be no restrictions imposed on the media’s entry.

We are concerned that there is a depressing trend emerging to isolate parliament and parliamentarians from media gaze.
The trend augurs ill of parliamentary democracy and much against the spirit of our parliamentary democracy.
Once again we have written to @loksabhaspeaker pic.twitter.com/zxFsfCLXTH

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) November 29, 2021

.@adhirrcinc, leader of the @INCIndia in Lok Sabha, has written to @loksabhaspeaker once again pic.twitter.com/aAzO9s389R

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) November 29, 2021

“We are concerned that there is a depressing trend emerging to isolate Parliament and parliamentarians from media gaze,” stated the letter.

In the largest democracy of the world, the entry of journalists in the Parliament is regulated through “lottery system”. This seems to be a ploy to censor transmission of news and the information to people. This is a very dangerous trend in a parliamentary democracy like India

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) November 30, 2021

The media fraternity has demanded that the entry of all journalists having permanent passes to the Parliament complex and the Press Gallery be restored as announced by the  Speaker, Lok Sabha, in July 2021. They have also asked that entry of veteran journalists into the Central Hall of Parliament be restored along with “the L&D [long and distinguished service] category for senior and veteran journalists as a mark of honour of their long services in the profession.”

“Reconstitute Press Advisory Committee at the earliest,” is another major demand. According to the media bodies, the restrictions now in place have “played havoc and made the situation much more difficult for media persons in carrying out their professional duties/responsibilities and had led to large-scale retrenchments in the fraternity.”

Congress leader Adhir Ranjan had also backed the journalists seeking entry to Parliament. He had written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Sunday asking that the restrictions imposed on media be lifted “to ensure free and fair coverage of proceedings during the Winter Session.” According to reports, he said that most of the media people was “denied access to the Press Gallery and interactions with parliamentarians on the pretext of pandemic guidelines,” adding that even though most public places are now open after Covid-19 curbs were lifted, restrictions on journalists covering the proceedings of the Parliament is continue. “It is definitely against the spirit of parliamentary democracy. I am concerned that there is a dangerous trend emerging to isolate parliament and parliamentarians from media scrutiny,” he wrote.

The winter session of Parliament that began on Monday and will continue till December 23. Earlier, the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Press & Public Relations wing) had issued its advisory on media access to the Parliament House Complex and Lok Sabha Press Gallery during the Winter Session, 2021. The arrangements stated that “Only one pass each will be given to accredited newspapers” and “only 60 Correspondents will be allowed inside the Lok Sabha Press Gallery on any given day of sitting” however, 11 of those seats are reserved in the Press Gallery of Lok Sabha for “official media and news agencies” which include “PTI, PTI Bhasha, UNI, Univarta, AIR, Doordarshan, Sansad TV, PIB, ANI, IANS, and Hindustan Samachar.”

It added that “a maximum of two Correspondents from each of the aforementioned official media/news agencies will be allowed inside the Parliament House complex on any given day” and “two Camerapersons/Photographers each DD, ANI, Photo Division, Sansad TV, PTI and UNI will be issued passes for coverage at Media Stands”. Ten “select photographers of Lok Sabha Press Gallery accredited newspapers” would also be “allowed, on rotation basis, on the basis of passes to be issued.” 

Journalists are not allowed to use their mobiles to take bytes/shots of Members of Parliament or Parliament House Complex. Media persons are also not allowed to “interact/interview/photograph anyone other than Ministers/Members of Parliament” and they too can only be interviewed at the designated media stands.

However, on the first day of the Session, November 29, 2021, all accredited electronic channels and agencies were allowed to cover the interaction with the Prime Minister outside the building. It added that journalists “who have not got two doses will have to get RTPCR test for Covid-19 seventy two hours each time prior to coming to the Parliament House for covering the proceedings of Lok Sabha on their allotted day. Such media persons have to carry a negative report to be shown at the Parliament House Reception for entry into the Parliament House Complex and RTPCR test may be repeated after 2 weeks.” 

Most importantly, it says, “Access of media person to the Central Hall will remain suspended until further orders.” Veteran journalists who have covered Parliament for decades do not recall such massive restrictions. On the first day of the Winter Session on November 29, 2021, the Farm Laws Repeal Bill was passed by the Parliament without any debate. It was done with a voice vote even though Opposition party Members of Parliament (MPs) from Congress, TMC and DMK had demanded a discussion of the laws.  

Related:

SKM decries Centre’s tyranny in disallowing debate on farm laws
Parliament repeals farm laws sans discussion, but what’s next?

The post Why are Parliament proceedings still restricted for most journalists? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

International media is headlining the excesses of military-ruled Myanmar, where a court has sentenced 37-year-old American journalist Danny Fenster to 11 years in jail. According to Reuters, this was confirmed by Fenster’s lawyer, and the sentencing comes even after the United States called for his release from “unjust detention”.

Managing Editor of online magazine Frontier Myanmar, Fenster, was found guilty of “incitement and violations of immigration and unlawful associations laws”. According to his employers, this sentence was “the harshest possible under the law”. Thomas Kean, Editor-in-Chief of Frontier Myanmar, one of the country’s top independent news outlets, was quoted by Reuters saying, “There is absolutely no basis to convict Danny of these charges. Everyone at Frontier is disappointed and frustrated at this decision. We just want to see Danny released as soon as possible so he can go home to his family.”

Fenster is reportedly, the “first Western journalist sentenced to prison in recent years in Myanmar”. On February 1, the country witnessed a military government take over after a coup against its elected government led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. 

Unacceptable and ridiculous that @FrontierMM Danny Fenster was sentenced to 11 years in prison by #Myanmar junta today. No journalist should be jailed for doing our job. Another testament that shows the world must end this military junta ruling and atrocities at all cost.

— Hnin Zaw (@hninyadanazaw) November 12, 2021

Danny Fenster, an American journalist, had been sentenced to 11 years imprisonment with hard labor a court in Yangon on Friday. #WhatsHappeningInMyanmar #Myanmar #Burma #JournalismIsNotACrime

— Wai Moe (@wai_moe) November 12, 2021

According to Reuters, the online magazine Frontier Myanmar, is one of the country’s top independent news sites and Fenster had previously worked for Myanmar Now, which focused on investigative news “but was banned after the military seized power.” He was arrested “as he was about to board a flight to the US on May 24” and was held at  “Yangon’s notorious Insein prison, where hundreds of opponents of the Tatmadaw, as the military is known, were jailed, many beaten and tortured, during decades of dictatorship”, as per news reports. He has been also charged with Sedition and offences under the country’s terrorism act earlier this week.

According to MyanmarNow.org, Danny Fenster was “accused of inciting unrest against Myanmar’s coup regime under Section 505a of the Penal Code, as well as breaching Section 13(1) of the Immigration Act and Section 17(1) of the Unlawful Associations Act.”  The Frontier Myanmar issued its statement on Friday detailing that Fenster was “handed a three-year prison term for the incitement charge, another three years for violating the Unlawful Associations Act and five years for the immigration charge, as well as a 100,000 kyat (US$56) fine.” It added that the “decision was announced this morning at a court inside Yangon’s Insein Prison, following a trial that was closed to the public. The sentences imposed were the harshest possible under the law.” 

Frontier Myanmar and Myanmar Now had previously clarified that Fenster had resigned from Myanmar Now in July 2020 and joined Frontier Myanmar the following month. According to Myanmar Now, Than Zaw Aung, Fenster’s lawyer, said that the prosecution called a total of 13 witnesses to testify, while the defence team relied on the testimony of three witnesses and various documents to make its case, 

Thomas Kean, Frontier Myanmar’s Editor-in-Chief told the media that, “There is absolutely no basis to convict Danny of these charges. His legal team clearly demonstrated to the court that he had resigned from Myanmar Now and was working for Frontier from the middle of last year.”

Swe Win, the editor-in-chief of Myanmar Now and Fenster’s former employer said, “Danny has done nothing wrong at all. And Myanmar Now has done nothing wrong, either. I view the sentencing as a sheer political kidnapping of an American citizen in the junta’s efforts to gain leverage in dealing with the United States. Danny now must be viewed as a hostage, and as such, the Biden administration has to send a clear and strong message to the junta for this senseless act.” The report added that “Swe Win and two other editors, Nyein Chan and Aung Shin, are also accused of the same crimes as Fenster.”

Related:

Myanmar refugee children can now go to school in Mizoram
A simmering revolution, stories untold, a military crackdown: Myanmar

The post Myanmar: American journalist Danny Fenster sentenced to 11-year jail term appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) has reached out to women journalists in Afghanistan in solidarity. The NWMI has explored ways to support the beleaguered colleagues trying to survive and tell their stories against immense odds there. The interactions have revealed that one of the most urgent needs, as expected, is money. 

The NWMI stated that the rapid Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in early August, and its potential adverse impact on hard-won freedoms, particularly for women’s rights, freedom of speech and press freedom, has now become alarmingly clear. 

Now, under the banner “Journalists for Afghanistan”, the NWMI has launched a fundraiser from sales of stunning photographs taken by well known photojournalists. According to the NWMI, the Associated Press has “generously allowed the use of images from its Afghanistan coverage”. The collection includes photographs by some of AP’s bravest and most talented visual journalists and allows rare glimpses into the daily life in Afghanistan documented over the past two decades. “At a time of unimaginable societal and political upheaval in Afghanistan, and even as its people face an uncertain and frightening future, these images challenge us to reflect on the power of resilience and courage in tumultuous times,” stated the NWMI, adding that “all proceeds of the fundraiser will go towards supporting Afghan women journalists.”

For more details and to buy prints visit: https://journalistsforafgh.wixsite.com/for-afg.  The images can also be viewed on Instagram. 

Journalists continue to be targeted, and beaten up when they venture out to report. Images such as those of reporters Nemat Naqdi and Taqi Daryabi showing bruises as a result of lashings by Taliban have been flooding the social media. The two Afghan journalists, were reporting on the somen-led Kabul protests, when they were thrashed by the Taliban. The photos were shared by American journalist Marcus Yam. Several Afghan journalists covering the Kabul protests have also been arrested, stated news reports.

Painful. Afghan journalists from @Etilaatroz, Nemat Naqdi & Taqi Daryabi, display wounds sustained from Taliban torture & beating while in custody after they were arrested for reporting on a women’s rally in #Kabul, #Afghanistan.#JournalismIsNotACrime https://t.co/jt631nRB69 pic.twitter.com/CcIuCy6GVw

— Marcus Yam 文火 (@yamphoto) September 8, 2021

اطلاعات روز: تقی دریابی و نعمت‌الله نقدی، دو گزارشگر روزنامه اطلاعات روز پس از بازداشت توسط طالبان، به شدت مورد لت‌وکوب قرار گرفته‌اند.
آثاری از شلاق و کیبل‌ بر سر، صورت و بدن این دو گزارشگر اطلاعات روز به چشم می‌خورد. pic.twitter.com/0vuEwYW28b

— اطلاعات روز | Etilaatroz (@Etilaatroz) September 8, 2021

Many media outlets have ceased operations in Afghanistan. The International Association of Women in Radio and Television (IAWRT) has also called upon the international community to “ensure that the rights of women and girls are respected, with special regard to women journalists and media professionals.” Violet Gonda, IAWRT President said, “There are many journalists and female social activists whose lives hang in the balance and whose stories may never be told as the Taliban takes over – once again. These are the brave women who challenged the status quo fighting for fundamental rights, but have been left behind while terror strikes”.  

On Tuesday September 7, 2021 thousands of Afghans took to the streets of Kabul to participate in anti-Pakistan protests. Demonstrators included hundreds of women who defied the Taliban’s traditional stand against women stepping out of their homes. The Taliban then reportedly opened fire to disperse protesters. Nevertheless, brave Afghan women continue to demand equal rights vis a vis education and employment, even as Taliban shows its old face again.

Women’s rights are under threat in Afghanistan, but they refuse to be silenced. ? pic.twitter.com/VWaDOiWcOS

— Amnesty International (@amnesty) September 3, 2021

The NWMI had shared earlier that women journalists they are in contact with are “bearing witness to the utter chaos, terror and uncertainty as the nightmare of a brutal Taliban reign becomes a reality, pushing back decades of hard-won progress for women and girls, upon whom the Taliban has meted out particularly horrific treatment merely on account of their gender.” A woman journalist shared this haunting statement with NWMI: “Last week, I was a news journalist. Today, I can’t even write under my own name or say where I am from or where I am. My whole life has been obliterated in just a few days.”

Related:

Mumbai with Afghanistan
Journalists are targeted by all hardliner regimes, this time in Afghanistan
Amnesty for Afghans: Can the world walk the talk?
Oppressed but not beaten: Afghani accounts on social media

The post Journalists for Afghanistan: A fundraiser for colleagues targeted by Taliban appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Journalists of the news website The Wire were granted two months of interim protection from any coercive action by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The portal, and three of its journalists had been named in three separate First Information Reports (FIR) in districts Rampur, Barabanki and Ghaziabad. According to media reports, the three-judge bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna however, added that while the court “does not want freedom of press to be muzzled or stifled” it cannot create a separate avenue for journalists to approach it directly for quashing of FIRs lodged against them. The SC has directed the petitioner to now approach the High Court and seek the quashing of the FIRs against them.

The Court said that while free speech and press freedom are crucial, alternative remedies before the High Court should be exhausted first, reported Bar and Bench quoting the SC Bench’s remarks: “We don’t want press to be stifled. But we cannot create separate avenue for journalists to come to this court directly under Article 32 for quashing FIRs.” 

The digital news portal, and Wire and its three journalists are facing charges under section 153 (Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), and 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), reported The Leaflet. Reporters, Seraj Ali and Mukul Singh Chauhan, were booked by UP’s Barabanki police for a video news story on the demolition of a mosque in May 2021 by the UP police, stated the news reports.

On May 17, following the orders of the SDM’s court, the Ram Sanehi Ghat mosque was demolished. The Guardian, had first reported that the destruction of the mosque violated a High Court order ruling to protect it till May 31. The breaking news was followed up extensively by many media outfits. The Wire’s video report showed statements by locals and devotees who described the demolition. After the case was registered, The Leaflet reports that the Investigating Officer (IO) had summoned The Wire’s Editor Siddharth Varadarajan, and journalists Ali and Chauha to Barabanki, from New Delhi. The IO threatened to procure non-bailable warrants against them if they failed to appear, stated the report. Meanwhile, Ismat Ara, also a journalist from The Wire, had been booked by the Rampur police for her report on the death of a farmer allegedly by a police bullet during the farmers’ protest in Delhi on Republic Day, January 26, 2021. She had conducted an interview with a family member of the deceased who had during the said interview expressed apprehensions of foul play in the young farmer’s death.

The Wire had also been named in an FIR filed by the Ghaziabad police for showing miscreants forcibly cutting off the beard of an old Muslim man, and quoting the victim himself as saying he was made to chant some slogans. The police had later denied any communal angle to the incident.

The Foundation for Independent Journalism (FIJ), the non-profit company which runs The Wire, had moved a writ petition along with three of its reporters, seeking quashing of the FIRs on the grounds that none of the offences listed in the FIRs was even made out, stated a report on the portal itself. Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, submitted that the police was attempting to violate constitutionally guaranteed press freedoms by filing criminal charges over factual news reports that the authorities did not like. The plea stated, “By the very lodging of such FIRs, media persons become embroiled in a process of seeking anticipatory bail, dealing with summons to attend police stations far away from their place of work, dealing with the threat of non-bailable warrants etc. – all for writing on, reporting, and commenting on current affairs. The process becomes the punishment.”

According to The Wire, the court granted two months interim protection to them, to approach the Allahabad high court for relief. Justice Rao noted that in the case of Shillong Times editor Patricia Mukhim, he had agreed to quash the FIR against her after the Meghalaya high court had refused to do so. “You can file an application before the high court and we can grant you some interim protection,” Justice Rao told Ramakrishnan. “Because what will happen is, this will open a Pandora’s box. We cannot take up all the cases here”.

Incidentally, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) ranked India at 142nd position out of 180 countries in its 2021 World Press Freedom Index. The Wire’s editor Siddharth Varadarajan, has been regularly named in complaints and FIRs have been lodged against him in Uttar Pradesh. In February this year,  a complaint against him had been lodged at Rampur’s Civil Lines police station for his social media post. The FIR was based on a complaint filed by one Sanju Turaiha, a resident of Rampur in Uttar Pradesh. Varadarajan was charged under Sections 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity between classes) of the IPC. It was alleged that Varadarajan’s social media post allegedly “misled people” on the death of Navreet Singh Dibdibiya, a protester in New Delhi on Republic Day when violence broke out during the protest against farm bills.

Journalists have been easy targets for complaints and FIRs being lodged against them for various reasons, most commonly, just for doing their jobs as reporters and editors.

Related:

Gauri Lankesh was a martyr to the cause of secular ideas

The post Supreme Court grants The Wire interim protection in two different cases in UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since August 15, Gauri Memorial Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have been hosting a a series of webinars in memory of slain journalist Gauri Lankesh. These online lectures and discussions examine several pertinent elements of the times we live in, and the role of the news media. On August 22, we hosted a discussion on the subject: Democracy under Attack: Populism, surveillance and the media.

The panel comprised Siddharth Vardarajan (Co-founder and Editor of The Wire), Prabir Purkayastha (Founder, Editor of NewsClick) and Teesta Setalvad (Human Rights Defender and CJP Secretary). This discussion was necessitated by the Pegasus spyware scandal, specifically its targeting of journalists known to speak truth to power. All three speakers have been in the regime’s crosshairs for their fearless journalism and human rights advocacy.

Mainstream vs Alternate Media

Speaking on the subject, Prabir Purkayastha first hailed Gauri Lankesh, a pioneer in the field of rights-based independent journalism, as “a martyr to the cause of fearless journalism.” Lankesh was gunned down outside her Bangalore home on September 5, 2017, allegedly by members of a hardline Hindutva group that has also been accused of targeting and killing rationalists like Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and MM Kalburgi. Lankesh’s independent publication Gauri Lankesh Patrike, has been a source of inspiration for many publications that are now part of what is called “Alternate news media” to distinguish them from “Mainstream media”.

But here, Purkayastha offers his take on the mainstream media, who have so far either being outright lapdogs for the regime, or played a role in deflecting attention from its failures. “I wouldn’t call them mainstream media, but big media. They are driven more by advertising and investor concerns than what is in the best interest of their readers,” said Prabir Purkayastha who founded NewsClick in 2009. “The objective then was to do this experiment to see how we could use the online platform to do impactful journalism while keeping costs in check. We wanted to see how a small news platform could change how people consume news,” he said, adding, “Big media was focusing on advertisers. As alternative media, we wanted to give a voice to movements,” explaining the genesis of one of the most impactful online news portals in the country. But Purkayastha has paid dearly for his journalism, being targeted repeatedly by a vindictive regime.

Intimidating journalists with criminal cases

Another online publication that refused to bend the knee and kiss the ring is The Wire. Siddharth Varadarajan and his team have also been targeted with trumped up charges and multiple FIRS. “There’s an FIR against me. There is an FIR against a young colleague Ismat Ara who interviewed the grandfather of the farmer killed during the republic day protests. This was because, during that interview the old man said he suspected foul play. There are other colleagues who also face FIRs, Siraj Ali for reporting on a mosque demolition in Barabanki. In all there are four to five different cases against us,” he said explaining how the regime has tried to intimidate them.

“Since the onset of the pandemic, 40-50 journalists across the country have been targeted with criminal cases for news reportage,” said Varadarajan enumerating instances where journalists were being intimidated using criminal cases, such as Kishorechandra Wangkhem who put up a post about how cow urine could not cure Covid-19, or a reporter in Port Blaire who asked authorities why they were forcibly quarantining a family that had mere spoken to a Covid patient over the phone.

At this point Teesta Setalvad also reminded people, “Siddique Kappan is still in jail,” referring to the journalist who was picked up while on his way to cover the Hathras case and then accused of being connected with “anti-national” organisations. “The journalist today is a Human Rights Defender and is targeted for demanding information in public interest, and raising concerns when this information is denied,” she said.

“This is a new form of offence, we have not seen this before, so definitely there is an escalation of fear, using extra legal means to clamp down on reporters, editors, publications who are against the Centre’s agenda. This trend is dangerous. Citizens must have the ability to question what the government is doing, every sector of civil society must raise their voice and speak out,” said Vardarajan.

Pegasus: Aftermath and Implications

The Wire team has played a key role in exposing the Pegasus scam. “We began by scrutinising a list of 1,300 names, but could verify 300 numbers who were targeted or listed for targeting with Pegasus,” said Varadarajan. Out of these, they approached 60 people with a request to analyse their phones but some were hesitant. “Eventually, we ended up testing 25 phones and 14 mobiles were confirmed to have been infected,” he said.

When Setalvad brought up the subject of how the concept of privacy itself is viewed by the middle class,

Purkayastha hit it out of the park saying, “Apologists for the government often say, ‘If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?’ To them, I say, ‘Why don’t you post all your passwords on social media?’”

Varadrajan also pointed out, “When the regime authorises surveillance of Prashant Kishore’s phone while he was advising Mamata Banerjee during the Bengal elections, in my opinion it is an assault on the electoral process itself.” He further said, “Pegasus is changing the nature of your phone as a communication device. It allows access to your camera and your microphone. Your phone can now be used for spying.” He added, “Pegasus allows the government to hack my phone. I don’t think that it is legal for the government to hack my phone using a cyber weapon.”

On the subject of malicious software, Teesta Setalvad drew attention to the findings of Arsenal, an American digital forensics firm that found malware had been used to plant evidence on devices used by activist implicated in the Bhima Koregaon case. And while the government continues to gaslight citizens, Setalvad pointed out, “Even the court has not taken cognisance of the Arsenal report. There is absence of judicial oversight in this case.”

To this Purkayastha responded by drawing attention to the digital literacy or possible lack thereof among members of the judiciary. He also said, “The Arsenal report on malware revealed how evidence was externally planted on a computer and used to build a case that the planted document was sent to others accused in the case. Today, malware has introduced ‘zero click infection’. You no longer have to click a suspicious link. It can either plant evidence or extract information.”

Reportage on Kashmir

The next topic touched upon by Setalvad was Jammu and Kashmir and how reporting from the valley is a challenge. She mentioned how The Wire and NewsClick has done exemplary work covering Kashmir, especially during the internet shutdown.

Vardarajan spoke about the pressure on journalists who are threatened with legal action for working on stories that reveal the actual state of affairs and how Jammu and Kashmir has taken the shape of a “police state” for journalists. He said, “Reporting from Kashmir is always difficult. There is too much pressure on journalists. They are summoned in thanas (police stations). Then, the cyber cell will ask you questions and berate you. If you are a freelancer and the publication is not strongly backing you, you are threatened with FIRs and that shakes a reporter up”. He suggested that the media fraternity needs to take a strong stand against such intimidation tactics and support the work done by reporters.

Purkayastha also shed some light on Kashmir and the internet shutdowns that have affected the daily routine of people there. He remarked that shutting down the internet affects other opportunities like applying for jobs, scholarships, etc. “Internet is a necessity now, not a luxury. Shutting down the internet is a denial of a necessity,” he said. Furthermore, he added that it is very important for journalists to report on Kashmir for the rest of the nation. “People should know what is really happening in Kashmir. We did it to show how things are not normal in Kashmir,” he said.

Hate Speech

Setalvad mentioned how hate is being used as a propaganda tool and as a result of this, the country is witnessing a tilt to majoritarianism. “Our publication Communalism Combat (1993-2001), then SabrangIndia (2015 onwards) have been highlighting instances of hate speech. Moreover, CJP has taken a legal recourse, reporting instances of hate to authorities and even those instances where news media was involved in the propagation of hate,” said Setalvad.

According to Vardarajan, it is futile to look at hate speech laws, as he is always in two minds about this. He drew parallels between two incidents where the Delhi Police charged student activists under UAPA and sedition charges but failed to take action against people who openly called for the genocide of Muslims. Referring to the Islamophobic slogans raised at Jantar Manta a few days ago, Varadarajan said, “You find no mention of sedition, or UAPA. Only milder sections of law are applied in cases where people call for the genocide at the heart of Delhi and they get bail!”

He also added that often the victims of hate speech incidents or crime are charged under hate speech provisions for promoting enmity between groups. Purkayastha also raised an important point saying it is the business model of these social media platforms that perpetuate and allow hate. Facebook, which has a poor track record of taking action against hate, has algorithms that depend on hate speech, as per Prabir. He added, “This appeals to certain sections. Facebook likes the eyeballs it attracts when hate is perpetuated. How do we regulate this! It is difficult to penalise this. We can complain about hate speech but the viewership also needs to be educated a lot. People now give so much more importance to WhatsApp and Facebook news. An entire generation needs to be educated.”

He pointed out how social media has been misused in the Muzaffarnagar riots, and against Rohingyas in the past.

New Information Technology Rules

Referred to the new rules of the Information Technology Act, that attempt to censor content on digital media platforms, Varadrajan said, “I am glad that the Bombay High Court has stayed some of the nastiest sections of the new IT Rules. The purpose behind these rules is to allow the government to control the narrative in digital news media. But no doubt this will be challenged, I hope the Supreme Court concurs with the decision of the High Court”. He further explained that this is against the Constitution and that there is an attempt by the Centre to weaponise the system of complaints to decide what can be said or printed.

The High Court recently stayed the operation of Rule 9 of the 2021 IT Rules deeming it to be manifestly unreasonable and going beyond the IT Act. This means that the publisher will not have to adhere to all the code of ethics such as the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India and the Programme Code under Section 5 of the CTVN Act. Further, no self-regulation or central government oversight can be established, allowing the publishers functioning under jurisdiction of Bombay High Court, to freely publish articles without central government interference, subject to further orders of the court.

Purkayastha also explained that the digital platforms have played a role that the ruling government doesn’t like and is uncomfortable with. He said, “This is not the intent of the law but the intent of the government is very clear. A long battle is ahead us.”

Concluding on a hopeful note, he did say that citizens are slowly understanding the government’s intent. He said after the Pegasus revelation, denying Covid deaths is increasing the alienation of people from the government.

The webinar ended by highlighting the need for people to organise themselves at every level to resist undemocratic practices of the Government and raise the right questions.

The entire webinar may be viewed here:

Related:

India’s Deep State: Is any citizen safe?
Gauri Lankesh case: SC to decide on keeping KCOCA charges against accused
Gauri Lankesh case: CJP assists sister Kavitha move SC
Pegasus Scandal: SC finally issues notice to GoI

The post Gauri Lankesh was a martyr to the cause of secular ideas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a very crucial hearing before the Supreme Court today, August 5, the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, led Bench directed all parties to serve copies of their respective petitions to the central government. CJI Ramana clarified that the hearing cannot continue without the presence of the central government, and posted the matter for August 10. The Bench also consisting of Justice Surya Kant observed that the Pegasus allegations are “serious” if news reports regarding the same are true.

A total of 9 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court regarding the Pegasus scandal. Five journalists, who have allegedly been directly targeted through Pegasus, namely Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, S.N.M. Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh and Ipsa Shataksi, approached the Supreme Court a few days ago for relief. They have contended that they have been directly subjected to “deeply intrusive surveillance” and a forensic examination done by Amnesty International on their mobile phones have revealed interference.

Their petition explains how the Pegasus spyware can be installed on a target’s mobile device to mine or plant data, without their knowledge, consent, or any action on their part. It also states that there is also no way short of a detailed forensic analysis by a highly skilled lab for an affected citizen to even know if their phone has been infected and compromised by the Pegasus malware.

The plea explains that after infiltration and installation, the malware takes control of the target’s phone and can then collect data, view contact lists, messages, and internet browsing history, intercept communications, remotely control peripherals such as turning on the phone’s camera and microphone, use GPS functions to track a target’s location and movements, track SMSs, emails, WhatsApp chats, calendar, contacts book, photos and videos etc.

The petition also submits that the Pegasus spyware is constantly evolving, and, therefore, the version of the Spyware detected on approximately 1,400 phones in 2019, and 50,000 phones in 2021, was more complicated and dangerous than the one identified in 2016. This is because, from 2018 onwards, Pegasus used the “zero-click” method, as found by Amnesty International Security’s Lab in its report dated August 8, 2021.

The writ petition reads, “The zero-click method uses a remote cyber-attack which does not require any interaction from the target. Simply put, a device can be attacked without needing the target to click on a malicious link. This is done by successfully exploiting vulnerabilities in the software and hardware of the phone. Once the attacker has found a vulnerability that they can exploit, they craft special data — such as a hidden text message or image file, to inject code in the target’s device. This compromises the device.”

Their plea also refers to the past responses of the Government with regards to surveillance. It mentions the statement made by the then Minister of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), Ravi Shankar Prasad, who had made an elaborate statement without categorically addressing the issue of surveillance using Pegasus. Instead of categorically confirming or denying the allegations or providing a concrete response to these questions of using Pegasus on Indians, the Minister at the time spoke about the successful digital ecosystem of the country, permissible restrictions on privacy, and India’s legal framework of surveillance.

The plea states that he had also told the House, “Government is required to balance the competing interests of privacy and national security and that whenever the Government or its agencies which are authorized – I repeat it – if they have to do so for the safety and security of India, they do so only as per the Standard Operating Procedure.” He insisted that the Government engages in “authorized surveillance” only.

The petition states that since hacking using a military-grade technology on a smartphone, which falls within the definitions of ‘computer’ and ‘computer system’ as under Section 2 of the IT Act, is ex facie illegal and violates the Information Technology Act, as it involves accessing a computer/computer system by introducing a ‘contaminant’ or ‘virus’; damaging the device and extracting data without permission of the owner of the device, thorough investigation is required. “Pegasus therefore is a ‘computer virus’ and a ‘computer contaminant’ as under the IT Act since it is designed to attach itself to a targeted device, and then modify, record and transmit data from the targeted devices”, reads the petition.

The journalists have also stated that Pegasus cannot be classified as a “form of legitimate or authorised surveillance” permitted under Section 69 of the IT Act or even Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, read with the relevant Rules, “as it goes much beyond the mere interception, monitoring, or decryption of messages. It falls entirely beyond the, arguably unconstitutional, existing regime of lawful surveillance and does not even offer the limited safeguards afforded therein to aggrieved persons.”

It also states that the central government has failed to unequivocally refuse the assertions that it did not enter into contracts for purchase of Pegasus spyware or otherwise sanction its use, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the hacking was the result of actions traceable to public servants, and it is incumbent upon the government to furnish information to identify the source of what it claims was an illegal executive action.

The petitioners have stated that this illegal surveillance has a chilling effect on their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and “casts an even darker and nearly indelible shadow of intrusion upon persons and renders the enjoyment of their fundamental rights impossible by aggrieved persons.”

Thus, they have requested the court to declare the installation and/or use of malware or spyware such as Pegasus is illegal, and issue a direction, directing the government to produce and disclose to the court and the petitioners all materials and documents with respect to all investigation, authorisation, and/or order(s) pertaining to the use of Pegasus.

Editors Guild of India’s PIL

The Editors Guild of India (EGI), on the other hand, has sought for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigation into the alleged spying of around 300 Indians including many incumbent and former ministers, a Supreme Court judge, journalists, lawyers, human rights activists and others.

Their plea has requested the court to direct the Centre to produce all orders that it allegedly issued authorising the interception, monitoring and decryption of electronic communication devices of the Indian citizens under the relevant law and rules. It has also asked for the Union to disclose if they procured license, or use the spyware Pegasus from NSO Group or its group companies and/or affiliates on Indian citizens.

The PIL also seeks from the court to, “Direct the Union of India to disclose the details of how many of the Indian Citizens who have been under electronic surveillance, hacking, or otherwise spied on, were charged with indulging in serious crime.” Alleging that Pegasus by its very design, can never pass the tests of necessity and proportionality, EGI’s PIL states that the privacy of the citizens of the country has been infringed and the Union of India has in reality, failed to act to safeguard this fundamental right.

The plea also points out that in the absence of parliamentary or judicial oversight, electronic surveillance gives the executive government the power to influence the subject of surveillance as well as all classes of persons, and that there is a severe threat to public safety at the very least, and potential threat to national security. The plea also reads, “hacking and electronic surveillance through spyware cannot be a suitable means for furthering any legitimate goal of the state in public safety or national security.”

Besides the aggrieved journalists and EGI, veteran journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar had also filed a PIL before the Apex Court last week. John Brittas, a Rajya Sabha member too, moved the top court seeking a court monitored probe into the surveillance allegations. SabrangIndia has filed a detailed report on the contents of their petitions that may be read here.

Two PILs have also been filed by Jagdeep S Chhokar, Narendra Mishra and Advocate ML Sharma.

Related:

Pegasus Snoopgate: RS MP, Journalists move SC for court monitored probe
Pegasus Project: 5 targeted journalists move SC, say have been subject to intrusive hacking
India’s Deep State: Is any citizen safe?

The post Pegasus scandal: SC says serious allegations if reports are true appeared first on SabrangIndia.