2024-03-03 04:24:06
New Delhi : The Supreme Court has rejected the PIL demanding digital surveillance of MPs and MLAs. The court said that we cannot monitor all the MPs and MLAs of the country. There is also something called right to privacy. We can’t put electronic chips on their feet or hands to monitor what they do. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has rejected the PIL related to MPs-MLAs.
What did the CJI say on the petition
A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court demanding digital monitoring of the activities of all elected MPs and MLAs for better transparency. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear it on Friday. CJI D.Y. The bench headed by Chandrachud rejected it. The court expressed surprise at the petition filed for 24-hour CCTV surveillance of all the MLAs.
Where will he go.. When the Supreme Court reversed its decision taking care of the poor man
‘There is something called right to privacy’
The bench said that elected representatives also have their own personal lives. CJI DY Chandrachud said that we cannot monitor all the MPs and MLAs of the country. There is also something called right to privacy. We can’t put electronic chips on their feet or hands to monitor what they do. When the petitioner asked for 15 minutes to present his case, the apex court warned him of a fine of Rs 5 lakh.
State compensation in exchange for land acquisition is not charity, why did the Supreme Court say this?
The court warned the petitioner of imposing fine
The court said that Rs 5 lakh will be charged and if we reject the petition then it will be given as arrears of land revenue. It is a waste of time. The petitioner appeared in person and argued that MPs and MLAs are salaried representatives under the Representation of the People Act. They represent the opinion of the people in making laws, plans and policies but after the elections they start behaving as rulers.
Unhappy with the relief sought in the PIL, the Supreme Court refused to consider the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, no penalty was imposed on the petitioner in the case.