The Supreme Court on Friday disagreed with a petitioner’s view that Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies should be “digitally monitored” to prevent instances of corruption and horse trading.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said lawmakers were not “convicted felons” who needed watching 24X7 lest they may flee from justice. Surely, the petitioner did not want microchips on legislators to keep track of their every movement.
“There is also something called ‘privacy’. They too have families,” the Chief Justice told petitioner S.N. Kundra.
‘Salaried representatives’
Mr. Kundra argued that ordinary citizens like him had elected these MPs and MLAs. There was a need for transparency about lawmakers. “After getting elected, they behave like our rulers. They made the choice to enter public life. Now, they cannot claim privacy. They are our salaried representatives,” he contended.
The Chief Justice said Mr. Kundra should not paint all legislators with the same brush. “You cannot make the charge [of corruption and misuse of office] against all MPs and MLAs,” the top judge reasoned.
But Mr. Kundra asked the court why these “salaried representatives” of the people should lord over the public, making laws for them. “The ultimate authority is the people. We should make laws, but instead our salaried servants are making laws for us,” he argued.
The Chief Justice responded that the Parliament, and not individual citizens, enacted laws in a democracy.
‘Need for debate’
Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted the need for debate in the legislature before making laws. The Chief Justice pointed out that while Mr. Kundra believed that legislators should be digitally monitored while a hundred million other Indians may not agree.
“Laws are not made on the streets by individuals. Then people will ask ‘why do you need judges’. For example, many people would want to kill a pickpocket… That is not done in a democracy. That is why we have judges to decide disputes in an institutional way,” the Chief Justice observed.
The court had initially warned the petitioner of imposing a hefty fine against “wasting judicial time”. At the end of the hearing, the court dismissed the petition and termed it a “misuse of process”, but did not impose a fine.
