On Friday “You want us to put chips on the MPs who have personal family time also. Do you know what you are arguing about?” CJI remarked.
NEW DELHI: On Friday (1st March), the Supreme Court of India rejected a petition urging for the digital monitoring of all elected Members of Parliament (MPs) to enhance governance.
READ ALSO: ASARAM BAPU’s PLEA: The Supreme Court Rejects Sentence Suspension Plea on Health Grounds
The Bench made it clear that the request for digital monitoring of MPs and decision-making solely through majority votes cannot be entertained. Moreover, the Court warned the petitioner that pursuing such cases could lead to cost imposition. However, no costs were imposed this time, but a cautionary note was issued against filing similar pleas in the future.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that digitally monitoring all elected MPs would violate their fundamental right to privacy. He emphasized that such monitoring is typically reserved for convicted felons and cannot be extended to elected representatives by default.
READ ALSO: DHCBA Former President Rajiv Khosla Acquitted By Delhi High Court
“The plea seeks MPs to be digitally monitored, and all policies should be decided by majority votes, etc.; this plea cannot be entertained. We place the petitioner on notice of the fact that this Court will impose costs if he pursues the cases. However, we desist from imposing costs with the caution that no such plea should be filed in the future.”
The petitioner’s counsel argued that MPs, once elected, tend to assume a superior stance akin to rulers, which should not be the case as they are public servants under the Representation of People Act. However, the Chief Justice countered this argument, emphasizing the importance of parliamentary democracy, where laws are crafted by elected representatives.
The counsel further suggested round-the-clock CCTV monitoring of MPs with public access to the footage, a proposition that the Chief Justice found impractical and invasive. He questioned the feasibility of monitoring MPs during their personal family time and highlighted the absurdity of such an approach.
The Chief Justice also cautioned against trivializing the role of MPs, emphasizing the need to uphold democratic processes and the rule of law. He dismissed the notion that citizens should take on the role of lawmakers, stressing the importance of parliamentary governance.
The petitioner’s counsel then argued,
“All these MPs, after getting elected under the Representation of People Act, start behaving like rulers. They are public servants.”
Rejecting the argument, the CJI stated,
“You cannot make this charge against all the MPs. How will individual citizens make laws in a democracy? All laws are passed by Parliament after elected MPs participate. As individual citizens, we cannot arrogate the law. Then people will say we don’t need judges; we will decide on the streets and kill for theft. Do we want that to happen?”
“You want us to put chips on the MPs who have personal family time also. Do you know what you are arguing about?” CJI remarked.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
