Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Declaration That Citizens Have Fundamental Right To Directly Petition The Parliament

A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna observed that it did not want to issue notice in the plea at this point and wanted to hear what the Centre had to say on the practical aspects and the existing system.

“We are not issuing notice for the time being. We want to be told what is happening there (the existing system)", the Bench said.

The plea sought to have a system with rules and regulatory framework that would empower citizens to petition the Parliament of India to have debates, discussions and deliberations on issues and concerns raised by citizens.

It is the petitioner’s case that the said framework if implemented will ensure that the grievances of citizens can be addressed in a proper manner by Parliament. It also pointed out that the current system does not fully allow citizens to initiate discussions in Parliament by moving appropriate petitions.

During the hearing, one of the first questions posed by the Bench to the petitioner was,

“How is the writ petition maintainable against the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha? We are little taken aback.”

“A citizen can directly petition the Lok Sabha even today. What you are saying is that it is not effective, right?”, the Bench further questioned.

Every citizen has the right to vote and citizens are highly engaged in the election process. However, after the vote is cast, the citizens don’t have any avenue to engage with the law makers, Advocate Rohan J Alva, appearing for the petitioner observed.

“After the vote is cast, what avenue does the citizen have to engage with the law makers? There is none….only as hoc arrangements are there. After that, I have no avenue. Many mature democracies do this including the House of Commons…..I am only asking to simply have the best system by applying what other countries are doing”

Given the massive difference in the population in India and the other countries where this system works, it may not be practical, the Bench observed :

“There are two aspects to it. India's population is more the Australia and UK (countries where this system is present). What will possibly happen if we were to recognise this? You want us to declare it the law be declared as part of Article 19(1) (a). Look at the practical aspect - how it will clog the working of the Parliament! Let us see what they have to say. Let's see what is practically feasible.”

As the matter drew to a close, the Bench observed, “When you say something should be a Fundamental Right, it must be carefully thought through”.

Case Title: Karan Garg v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 39/2023 PIL