'They Also Have Right To Privacy' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 24x7 Digital Monitoring Of MPs/MLAs

The Supreme Court today (March 1) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition writ petition seeking to digitally monitor all the activities of MPs/MLAs to 'ensure transparency and to prevent corruption'. At the outset, CJI DY Chandrachud expressed dissatisfaction regarding the substance of the petition and reminded that a mandamus to seek continuous digital monitoring of elected representatives would be in stark violation of the Right to Privacy. He also warned the petitioner before hearing him on merits, that the petitioner would face costs of Rs 5 lakhs if the Court found the matter to be unfit of devote public's time “Dr Kundra, what is this writ petition under Article 32 … we cannot put some chips on their legs or hands to monitor what they do….how can we digitally monitor? There is something called the right to privacy also….I'll put you on guard because at the end of it is public time. We will direct you to deposit costs and tell you in advance, the cost will be 5 lacs for pursuing this proceeding and it will be executed as arrears of land revenue if we dismiss the petition. This is public time, this is not our ego” The petitioner prayed that all elected representatives, without exceptions be digitally monitored and that all policy decisions be taken by the majority of all people through digital mode. The petitioner, in an attempt to pursue the court of the substance in the matter, contended that after being elected as an MP/MLA under the People's Representation Act 1951, such persons start behaving as if “they are here to Rule on the People, they behave as if they are the masters”. The CJI interjected to caution that such a general assumption cannot be made for all such elected representatives. Expressing surprise at the petitioner's prayer that all laws should be made by citizens directly, CJI stated : "How will individual citizens make laws? In no democratic country, individual citizens make laws. Laws have to be moved and passed in the Parliament for the legislature by the elected representatives of the people. Can you imagine... Suppose you were to say that I am going to make a law in the Parliament to digitally monitor MP/MLAs , 100 million people will say that this is wrong, and I do not want such a law…as individual citizens, we cannot arrogate the right. Then people will start saying why do you require these judges? We will do justice on the streets..we find somebody pickpocketing, according to us he should be killed, we do not want that to happen right, therefore..” The petition however interrupted to rely upon Dr. BR Ambedkar's words - “It is not enough to be electors only, it is necessary to be lawmakers. Otherwise those who will become lawmakers will become masters of those who can only be electors”. He asserted that his plea was to monitor the elected persons for all 24 hours of the day through a CCTV and link that footage to the smartphones of citizens. "You realise the gravity of what you are arguing? MPs/MLA also have private lives, at home, they are with their families,” CJI asked.The petitioner replied that those who are touchy about their privacy should not apply for these jobs. He also pointed out that “there are also certain articles in the constitution which go against the basic structure”.The bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, then proceeded to dismiss the petitioner. However, no cost was imposed, taking a lenient view, and the petitioner was let off with a warning.Case Details : Dr. Surinder Nath Kundra v Union Of India And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 45/2024 PIL-WClick Here To Read/Download Order

'They Also Have Right To Privacy' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 24x7 Digital Monitoring Of MPs/MLAs

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags