On January 27, a division of the Supreme Court led by Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna ordered that the Centre receive a copy of the public interest lawsuit that sought to establish that citizens have a fundamental right to petition the Parliament directly and request discussion on significant matters of public interest. 

A Bench made the observation that it did not want to give notice in the plea at this time and that it wished to hear the Center's perspective on the relevant practical issues and the current system.

In order to enable citizens to petition the Indian Parliament for debates, discussions, and deliberations on problems and concerns presented by citizens, a system with rules and regulatory framework was sought after. 

The petitioner argues that if the aforementioned structure is put into place, it will guarantee that Parliament can properly handle the complaints of citizens. It also drew attention to the fact that the current system limits citizens' ability to introduce relevant petitions to start conversations in Parliament. 

Every individual has the right to vote, and participation in elections is very high. However, after the vote is cast, there is no way for citizens to interact with lawmakers, according to Advocate Rohan J Alva, who is appearing for the petitioner observed.

“After the vote is cast, what avenue does the citizen have to engage with the law makers? There is none….only as hoc arrangements are there. After that, I have no avenue. Many mature democracies do this including the House of Commons…..I am only asking to simply have the best system by applying what other countries are doing”

The Bench noted that this approach may not be feasible given the stark demographic disparity between India and the other nations where it is used :

“There are two aspects to it. India's population is more the Australia and UK (countries where this system is present). What will possibly happen if we were to recognise this? You want us to declare it the law be declared as part of Article 19(1) (a). Look at the practical aspect - how it will clog the working of the Parliament! Let us see what they have to say. Let's see what is practically feasible.”

As the matter drew to a close, the Bench observed, “When you say something should be a Fundamental Right, it must be carefully thought through”.

Case Title: Karan Garg v. UoI And Ors. 
Citation: WP(C) No. 39/2023

Appearances of the advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Joby P. Varghese, AOR
 Mr. Rohan Alva, Adv.
 Mr. Joby P Varghese, Adv.
 Mr. Shahid Akhtar, Adv.