The Calcutta High Court Tuesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a social activist alleging gadgets and spyware like Pegasus to invade the privacy of civil society [Sujit Kumar Datta vs State of West Bengal]. .A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya said that the prayers made by the petitioner were vague."The prayers made are vague thus, we do not deem it fit to entertain the petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make representation before appropriate authorities, if his individual privacy is invaded," the bench said. .The bench was hearing a PIL filed by one Sujit Kumar Datta. He apprehended that the State authorities are illegally invading the privacy of the members of civil society. He alleged that the authorities are using Pegasus and other similar modern software to invade the privacy of the civil society. He argued that his own right to life and liberty and right to privacy are at stake and thus, the Court must intervene..The bench, however, opined that the petition was vague and had no material to substantiate the apprehension.Therefore, it refused to entertain the PIL.
The Calcutta High Court Tuesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a social activist alleging gadgets and spyware like Pegasus to invade the privacy of civil society [Sujit Kumar Datta vs State of West Bengal]. .A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya said that the prayers made by the petitioner were vague."The prayers made are vague thus, we do not deem it fit to entertain the petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make representation before appropriate authorities, if his individual privacy is invaded," the bench said. .The bench was hearing a PIL filed by one Sujit Kumar Datta. He apprehended that the State authorities are illegally invading the privacy of the members of civil society. He alleged that the authorities are using Pegasus and other similar modern software to invade the privacy of the civil society. He argued that his own right to life and liberty and right to privacy are at stake and thus, the Court must intervene..The bench, however, opined that the petition was vague and had no material to substantiate the apprehension.Therefore, it refused to entertain the PIL.