A petition seeking directions to digitally monitor all elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in India for better governance was dismissed by the Supreme Court today. The dismissal came from a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, deeming the petition unfit for consideration.

The plea, which advocated for the digital monitoring of MPs and suggested that all policy decisions should be made based on majority votes, was met with skepticism by the Bench. Chief Justice Chandrachud, in particular, highlighted the fundamental right to privacy that elected representatives hold, emphasizing that such digital monitoring is typically reserved for convicted individuals who pose a flight risk.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice firmly stated, "This is done only for a convicted felon who can flee justice." He also warned that pursuing the matter further could result in significant costs imposed on the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of not wasting the court's time.

Responding to the petitioner's argument that MPs should be considered public servants and thus subject to continuous monitoring, the Chief Justice questioned the feasibility and ethics of such surveillance. He emphasized the role of MPs in the democratic process, stating, "You cannot make this charge against all the MPs. How will individual citizens make law in a democracy?"

Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel suggested the installation of CCTV cameras for round-the-clock monitoring of MPs, with citizens having access to the footage on their phones. However, this proposition was met with incredulity by the Bench, with Chief Justice Chandrachud questioning the practicality and intrusiveness of such measures.

In response to the counsel's argument, the Chief Justice remarked, "You want us to put chips on the MPs who have personal family time also...do you know what you are arguing?" This comment underscored the court's concerns regarding the excessive invasion of privacy that such monitoring would entail.

Case: Dr Surinder Nath Kundra vs. Union of India.