2024-03-02 02:24:50
New Delhi : The Supreme Court refused to direct 24-hour digital surveillance of MPs and MLAs. The Supreme Court rejected the PIL which had sought direction to the Central Government to monitor MPs and MLAs round the clock for better governance in the country. Expressing displeasure over the petitioner, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked whether the court should implant a chip in the body of the MPs to keep an eye on their activities. Right to privacy is also a thing.
Petition regarding digital surveillance of MPs-MLAs
The Supreme Court said that MPs and MLAs also have the right to privacy. An application was filed in the Supreme Court requesting for 24-hour digital surveillance of MPs and MLAs. In the application filed in the Supreme Court, it was said that to ensure transparency and to curb corruption, instructions should be given that MPs and MLAs should be digitally monitored. The court said that filing such an application and requesting the court to issue instructions is an interference in their right to privacy.
State compensation in exchange for land acquisition is not charity, why did the Supreme Court say this?
Strict rebuke to the petitioner
The Supreme Court cautioned the petitioner and said that you have filed this writ under Article 32. We cannot ask them (MPs and MLAs) to implant chips in their feet and hands. During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice warned petitioner Surinder Nath Kundra that a penalty of Rs 5 lakh could be imposed on him for filing such an application and wasting the court’s time.
Court said- Right to privacy is also a thing
The Supreme Court told the petitioner that if you want to argue and we do not agree with your argument, then we will impose damages. This is the public’s time for court. The Supreme Court asked the petitioner whether you have any idea what you are arguing. Do you want 24-hour surveillance of MPs and MLAs? Such treatment is given to those criminals who are suspected of fleeing from justice. Is there a right to privacy? We cannot do digital surveillance of MPs and MLAs.
If you don’t, we will… Supreme Court angry over not giving permanent commission to women in Indian Coast Guard
what did the petitioner say
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that MLAs and MPs get salaries from public money but they consider themselves kings. On this, the Supreme Court said that allegations cannot be leveled against everyone in the same way. It is a democratic system and laws have to be implemented through elected members. The court said that how can a citizen make a law in the country? No person can make laws in a democratic country. The law is passed in the Parliament. The Supreme Court further said that this petition is not worthy of consideration. The court did not impose damages on the petitioner but warned against such petitions in future.