In a judicial pronouncement on Friday, the Supreme Court categorically dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that advocated for the digital surveillance of all Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs). The court, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and including Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, opined that it was impractical to issue a directive mandating the imposition of electronic chips on lawmakers, a measure typically reserved for convicts. The bench underscored the right to privacy accorded to MPs and MLAs.
Chief Justice Chandrachud articulated, “We cannot affix chips on their limbs to monitor their activities. Such measures are only implemented in the case of a convicted criminal with a potential proclivity to evade justice. The notion of digital monitoring impinges upon the right to privacy.” This assertion came in response to a PIL filed by Surinder Nath Kundra, urging the court to endorse the digital monitoring of all legislators across the nation.
Appearing in person, Kundra appealed to the court to allow him to present his case and elucidate the grounds for seeking such a directive. The Chief Justice cautioned Kundra about the expenditure of public time and hinted at the possibility of imposing costs, emphasizing that it was not a matter of ego but a judicious utilization of public resources.
Kundra contended that elected representatives, once under the ambit of the Representation of People Act, often assume a quasi-autocratic demeanor. Chief Justice Chandrachud countered, stating that making sweeping allegations against all MPs and MLAs based on individual grievances was untenable. Kundra, asserting that citizens are the ultimate authority, argued that legislators are public servants, and the authority to legislate should rest with the people.
Responding to this, the Chief Justice questioned the practicality of citizens individually legislating, emphasizing that democratic societies vest this power in elected representatives within the parliamentary framework. He highlighted the necessity of an institutionalized judicial system in democratic societies, cautioning against mob justice.
Kundra persisted, claiming a threat to the Constitution. Chief Justice Chandrachud refuted this, pointing out that MPs and MLAs have private lives with their families. He questioned the feasibility of constant monitoring by placing chips on their shoulders. Kundra, suggesting that those concerned about privacy should refrain from seeking public office, failed to convince the bench.
After careful consideration of the petitioner’s submissions, the bench dismissed the PIL, refraining from imposing costs on the petitioner.