Secret threats: The state must not stifle democratic dissent in the name of national security, Pg8

The editorial critiques unchecked state surveillance, warning against using national security as a justification for stifling dissent and civil liberties.

• Refers to ongoing Supreme Court hearings into alleged Pegasus spyware use on politicians, journalists, judges, and civil society actors.

• Raises concerns over the lack of transparency, oversight, and legal safeguards in electronic surveillance.

Detailed Insights:

• Surveillance must follow due process with judicial and institutional checks to prevent abuse and protect democratic values.

• The court’s framing of the debate — not about whether the state can use spyware, but who qualifies as a legitimate target — is a vital democratic inquiry.

• Criticizes arbitrary labeling of critics and opposition as anti-national, and misuse of executive power in the absence of legal standards.

Significance:

• Highlights the tension between national security and civil liberties, stressing the need for proportionality, accountability, and judicial review in surveillance.

• Recommends that surveillance protocols must be time-bound, transparent, and subjected to public and institutional scrutiny.

• Emphasizes that a constitutional democracy must protect freedom of expression, dissent, and privacy while dealing with modern security threats.

Mains Mock Question:

"In the context of increasing use of surveillance technology, critically examine the challenges of balancing national security with individual rights and democratic accountability."