Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After the Technical Committee and the Overseeing Judge submitted their reports in the Pegasus Spyware case, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ has listed the matter after four weeks for further hearing.

The Court had, on 27.10.2021, in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 985 appointed an Expert Committee to look into the truth or falsity of the allegations in the Pegasus Spyware case, “taking into account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature of the large-scale violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.”

The what, the why, the who and the how: All you need to know about SC’s independent probe order in Pegasus case

The Pegasus suite of spywares, being produced by an Israeli Technology firm, viz., the NSO Group, 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. Reports indicate that individuals from nearly 45 countries are suspected to have been affected.

On 18th  July 2021, a consortium of nearly 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 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.

While the Supreme Court was initially reluctant in interfering in the matter due to lack of material placed before it, it eventually decided to step in after the subsequently filed petitions, as well as additional documents filed by others, brought on record certain materials that could not be brushed aside, such as the reports of reputed organizations like Citizen Lab and affidavits of experts.

Additionally, the sheer volume of cross-referenced and crossverified 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.

Pegasus| ‘National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from’. Here’s why the initially reluctant Supreme Court finally decided to interfere

[Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1085, order dated 25.08.2022]

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Ms. Vidusshi, Adv. Mr. Zubin, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Tuhina, Adv. Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Mr. Tanmay Singh, Adv. Ms. Anandita Mishra, Adv. Mr. Madhav Khurana, Adv. Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Radhika Dhanotia, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv. Ms. Monika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Krishnesh Bapat, Adv. Ms. Radhika Dhanotia, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Nishant Singh, Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv. Ms. Radhika Dhanotia, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Monika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Krishnesh Bapat, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Singh, Adv. Ms. Anandita Mishra, Adv. Mr. Madhav Khurana, Adv. Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Narendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. V.M. Eashwar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Narayan, AOR Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Adv. Ms. Ria Singh Sawney, Adv. Ms. Udayadita Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Yadav, Adv. Petitioner-in-person Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, AOR Mr. Biju Joseph, Adv. Mr. Hardik Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Pramod P., Adv. Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, LD SG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, LD ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Datta, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Sing, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr.Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. For M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Ms. Anu K.Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR Mr. Barun Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. Ms. Arti Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

­George Orwell, 1984


Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ has appointed an Expert Committee to look into the truth or falsity of the allegations in the Pegasus Spyware case, “taking into account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature of the large-scale violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.”

The what, the why, the who and the how: All you need to know about SC’s independent probe order in Pegasus case

Here are five unmissable quotes on right to privacy from the Pegasus order

  • 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.
  • We live in the era of information revolution, where the entire lives of individuals are 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 self-censorship. 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 public-watchdog role of the press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information.

While the Supreme Court was initially reluctant in interfering in the matter due to lack of material placed before it, here’s why it eventually decided to step in.

Pegasus| ‘National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from’. Here’s why the initially reluctant Supreme Court finally decided to interfere

[Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 985, decided on 27.10.2021]


Counsels:

For petitioners: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi, Meenakshi Arora, Colin Gonsalves, ML Sharma

For Union of India: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“This 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.”

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ has appointed an Expert Committee to look into the truth or falsity of the allegations in the Pegasus Spyware case, “taking into account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature of the large-scale violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.”

The what, the why, the who and the how: All you need to know about SC’s independent probe order in Pegasus case

While the Supreme Court was initially reluctant in interfering in the matter due to lack of material placed before it, here’s why it eventually decided to step in.


The Controversy


The Pegasus suite of spywares, being produced by an Israeli Technology firm, viz., the NSO Group, 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. Reports indicate that individuals from nearly 45 countries are suspected to have been affected.

On 18th  July 2021, a consortium of nearly 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 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.


Union of India’s Stand


Union of India, through the  Minister of Railways, Communications and Electronics and Information Technology, took the stand in Parliament on 18th  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 interception of communication is extremely rigorous, and no illegal surveillance could take place.


Supreme Court’s decision to interfere


Material on record

The Court, initially had reservations 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

However, the 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 cross-referenced and crossverified 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 self-serving. However, such an omnibus oral allegation is not sufficient to desist from interference.”

National Security vis-à-vis Citizen’s Right to Privacy

Union of India was asked 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. It was made clear to the Solicitor General on many occasions that it would not push the Union 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 Union 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 Respondent¬Union of India had made their stand clear it would have been a different situation, and the burden on us would have been different. Such a course of action taken by the Respondent¬Union of India, especially in proceedings of the present nature which touches upon the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country, cannot  be accepted.”

Union of India has justified its non¬submission of a detailed counter affidavit by citing security concerns. However,

“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.”

Of course, the Union of India may decline to provide   information   when   constitutional   considerations exist, 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 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.”

[Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 985, decided on 27.10.2021]


Counsels:

For petitioners: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi, Meenakshi Arora, Colin Gonsalves, ML Sharma

For Union of India: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ has appointed an Expert Committee to look into the truth or falsity of the allegations in the Pegasus Spyware case, “taking into account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature of the large-scale violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.”

Here is all you need to know about the case and the order of the Court


The Controversy


The Pegasus suite of spywares, being produced by an Israeli Technology firm, viz., the NSO Group, 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. Reports indicate that individuals from nearly 45 countries are suspected to have been affected.


Why?


The compelling circumstances that have weighed with to appointed an Expert Committee:

  1. Right to privacy and freedom of speech are alleged to be impacted, which needs to be examined.
  2. The entire citizenry is affected by such allegations due to the potential chilling effect.
  3. No clear stand taken by the Respondent¬Union of India regarding actions taken by it.
  4. Seriousness accorded to the allegations by foreign countries and involvement of foreign parties.
  5. Possibility that some foreign authority, agency or private entity is involved in placing citizens of this country under surveillance.
  6. Allegations that the Union or State Governments are party to the rights’ deprivations of the citizens
  7.  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.

Who?


“… 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, the Court constituted the Committee and shortlisted expert members based on biodatas and information collected independently. While the Court shortlisted and chose the most renowned experts available to be a part of the Committee, it 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.

Head: Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, assisted by:

  1. Mr. Alok Joshi, former IPS officer (1976 batch) with 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.
  2. Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 (International Organisation of   Standardisation/ International   Electro¬Technical   Commission/Joint Technical Committee), a sub¬committee which develops and facilitates standards within the field of software products and systems. He is also a part of the Advisory Board of Cyber Security Education and Research Centre at Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi and is a globally recognized as a cyber security expert.

Three members of the Technical Committee:

  1. Dr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. He has over two decades of experience as an academician, cyber security enabler and cyber security expert and specializes in cyber security policy, network vulnerability assessment and penetration testing.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

What?


The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:

To enquire, investigate and determine:

  1. 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?
  2. The details of the victims and/or persons affected by such a spyware attack.
  3. What   steps/actions   have   been   taken   by   the Respondent-Union of India after reports were published in the year 2019 about hacking of WhatsApp accounts of Indian citizens, using the Pegasus suite of spyware.
  4. Whether any Pegasus suite of spyware was acquired by the Respondent-Union of India, or any State Government, or any central or state agency for use against the citizens of India?
  5. 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?
  6. If any domestic entity/person has used the spyware on the citizens of   this   country,   then   is   such a use authorised?
  7. 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.

To make recommendations:

  1. Regarding enactment or amendment to existing law and procedures surrounding surveillance and for securing improved right to privacy.
  2. Regarding enhancing and improving the cyber security of the nation and its assets.
  3. To ensure prevention of invasion of citizens’ right to privacy, otherwise than in accordance with law, by State and/or non-State entities through such spywares.
  4. Regarding the establishment of a mechanism for citizens to raise grievances on suspicion of illegal surveillance of their devices.
  5. Regarding the setting up of a well¬equipped independent premier agency to investigate cyber security vulnerabilities, for threat assessment relating to cyberattacks and to investigate instances of cyberattacks in the country.
  6. Regarding any ad¬hoc 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.
  7. On any other ancillary matter that the Committee may deem fit and proper.

How?


(1) The Committee constituted 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 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) The overseeing Judge to fix the honorarium of the members of the Committee in consultation with   them, which shall be paid by the Respondent¬Union of India immediately.

(5) The Respondent¬Union 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 Court.

(6) Mr. Virender Kumar Bansal, Officer on Special Duty/ Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 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 other members, tasked to assist him.


The Committee has to prepare the report after a thorough inquiry and place it before the Supreme court, expeditiously.

The matter will next be taken up after 8 weeks.

[Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 985, decided on 27.10.2021]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Counsels:

For petitioners: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi, Meenakshi Arora, Colin Gonsalves, ML Sharma

For Union of India: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and A.Y. Kogje, JJ., decided a petition wherein Union of India was directed to allow compassionate appointment to the petitioner- sister of an Indian spy languishing in prison in Pakistan.

The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds as per her educational qualification. Further, ex-gratia compensation of over and above Rs. 5,00,000 as awarded by the Court in earlier proceedings, was also prayed for. According to the petitioner, her brother Kuldip Yadav was recruited by Border Security Force (BSF) for Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) military intelligence in 1991. He was deputed at New Delhi and thereafter sent to Pakistan. It was further submitted that Kuldip Yadav was arrested in Pakistan in 1994, and has been languishing in their jails, possibly at Kot Lahkpat (Lahore), since. The Respondent Union of India took a stand that it could not allow the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, as by virtue of the consolidated instructions, a compassionate appointment can be made only in the event of Government servant dying in harness or who has retired on medical grounds leaving his family without pecuniary support.

The High Court noted it to be a settled position that Kuldip Yadav was languishing in Pakistan jails in pursuance of the sentence imposed by Court Martial. However, it was denied by the Union of India that he was appointed by BSF or any other agency. The Court observed, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, naturally, there may not be any record available, more particularly with respect to such persons who may be appointed for secret services. The Court held that in special circumstances of the case where the brother of the petitioner is undergoing sentence in Pakistan for espionage, the instant matter required to be treated as an absolutely exceptional one and the petitioner, sister of the prisoner in Pakistan, should be appointed on compassionate grounds as per her educational qualification. The Court directed the respondents to complete the exercise within four weeks. The petition was accordingly allowed in part. [Rekha Nanakchand v. Union of India,2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1077, dated 12-6-2018]