Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy

Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy
Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy
Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy
Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy

Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy

Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy

Supreme Court Rejects Petition for Electronic Monitoring of MPs, Citing Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking electronic tracking of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the country. The court not only rejected the petition but also warned the petitioner, Surinder Nath Kundra, against filing such petitions in the future.

The court firmly stated that it is not permissible to put electronic chips on parliamentarians, emphasizing the right to privacy. The Chief Justice remarked, “We cannot put chips on people. What is this petition? How can we digitally monitor the MPs in the country? There is something called the right to privacy.”

Despite the court’s initial inclination to impose costs for filing such a petition, it eventually dismissed the PIL without imposing any financial penalty. The Chief Justice asserted that public time is precious, and the court may consider costs for such petitions.

The petitioner argued that MPs, despite being elected under the Representation of People Act, sometimes behave like rulers and suggested that monitoring should be accessible to citizens on their phones. However, the court was not convinced, highlighting that lawmakers also have personal family time.

The court cautioned the petitioner against making broad charges against all MPs based on potential grievances against a specific member. It emphasized the importance of the legislative process and warned against citizens arrogating the law. The court’s comments also alluded to potential future scenarios where public trust in judicial processes might erode if unchecked petitions proliferate.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Telegram
WhatsApp
Email
Note: You have to fill-up above all respective field, then click below button for send your message