A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that asked the Supreme Court to rule that President Droupadi Murmu, and not Prime Minister Narendra Modi, should preside at the inauguration of the new Parliament building was denied by the apex court on Friday. After a vacation bench consisting of Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha declined to consider the petitioner’s plea, attorney CR Jaya Sukin, who was appearing as a party-in-person, withdrew from the case.
Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha stated that the applicant lacks locus standi to bring such a plea and mentioned that he should be grateful that the court is not fining him.
“What is your interest,” the bench asked and commented, “We don’t understand why you come with such petitions. We’re not interested in entertaining it under Article 32.” The petitioner cited Article 79 of the Indian Constitution to which Justice Maheshwari inquired, “How is Article 79 related to the inauguration?”
The President, per him, should open the building since she is the head of the executive. The President’s Special Address is what formally begins each Parliamentary session, according to Article 87, which he emphasised.
The petition was dismissed by the bench because it was not persuaded by the applicant’s arguments as he requested permission to withdraw the case. In the opinion of Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General, CR Jaya Sukin shouldn’t be permitted to withdraw it since he would make a similar argument in the High Court. The SG argued that these issues should be categorically rejected as not justiciable by the court.
However, the petitioner asserted that he is withdrawing because he does not intend to appear before the High Court and that he does not want the rejection to serve as a “certificate to the executive.” He decided to abandon the lawsuit after much deliberation because, as the bench noted in the decision, the Court was not inclined to hear the matter.
The PIL which said, “Lok Sabha Secretariat violated the Constitution by not inviting the President for the inauguration,” was filed in the highest court on Thursday seeking a direction that the new Parliament building should be inaugurated by President Droupadi Murmu.
According to the petition, the announcement made by the Lok Sabha Secretariat on May 18, 2023, and the invitation sent out by its Secretary General for the opening of the new Parliament building, violate the Indian Constitution. It alleged that the President is an essential member of the Parliament and quoted Article 79 of the Constitution to support this claim. Therefore, she shouldn’t be kept away from the inauguration ceremony.
There will be a seven-hour programme on May 28 to commemorate Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s inauguration of the new Parliament house. The ceremony will begin with a havan and a puja, and it will end with a speech by PM Modi.
However, the opening of the new structure, which is a part of the revitalization of Central Vista, the country’s power corridor, has been met with opposition, and 21 opposition parties have decided to boycott the occasion. The inauguration by the PM, they claim, represented a grave insult and direct assault on democracy by sidelining the president.
