The Calcutta High Court, in a recent development, declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Sujit Kumar Datta against the alleged invasion of privacy by gadgets and spyware such as Pegasus on civil society. The division bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya deemed the prayers made by the petitioner to be vague.
In their ruling, the bench stated, "The prayers made are vague, and thus, we do not find it appropriate to entertain the petition. However, we grant the petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate authorities if his individual privacy is infringed upon."
Sujit Kumar Datta had filed the PIL expressing concern that state authorities were unlawfully invading the privacy of members of civil society by utilizing Pegasus and similar modern software. He argued that his own fundamental rights to life, liberty, and privacy were at risk, necessitating the court's intervention.
The bench, however, held the opinion that the petition lacked clarity and failed to provide substantial evidence to support the petitioner's apprehensions. Consequently, they declined to entertain the PIL.
TAGS: Calcutta High Court Public Interest Litigation (PIL) social activist gadgets spyware Pegasus invasion of privacy civil society division bench Chief Justice Justice vague prayers material substantiate apprehension right to life right to liberty right to privacy ruling state authorities unlawfully fundamental rights.
