E-Paper
Amid Parliament row, SC rejects plea seeking unveiling of new building by President Murmu
As the bench was set to dismiss the petition, Sukin requested to withdraw it and the same was subsequently allowed.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL), seeking direction to the Lok Sabha secretariat for inauguration of the new Parliament building by President Droupadi Murmu on Sunday.
Not convinced by the arguments of the petitioner and advocate CR Jaya Sukin, a vacation bench of justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha said: “You tell us how the provisions of Constitution are related to inauguration of the new Parliament.”
As the bench was set to dismiss the petition, Sukin requested to withdraw it and the same was subsequently allowed.
Sukin’s plea in the top court came amid an ongoing political controversy over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to preside over Sunday’s ceremony. On May 18, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla met Modi and invited him to inaugurate the new Parliament building on May 28.
Read: Yogi charges at Oppn over Parliament launch boycott call: ‘Highly irresponsible’
Twenty-one opposition parties have decided to boycott the event, alleging that the decision undermined the office of the President and violated the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The Union government has dismissed the allegations and said the boycott decision showed “contempt for the essence of democracy”.
Appearing for the Centre in the top court, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said if the petition is allowed to be withdrawn, then it will be filed in the high court. “These issues are not justiciable. It may be dismissed as withdrawal will mean that he will again approach the high court,” he said.
After the bench asked Sukin if a withdrawal was sought to approach the high court, he said he does not intend to file another petition in the matter. He said that he sought a withdrawal as a dismissal of the plea would mean that the action of the executive in keeping the President away from the inaugural ceremony has been held to be correct.
The top court enquired from Sukin the reason behind filing such a petition. “What is your interest in this matter?” it asked.
Sukin told the court that he believes that Article 79 makes the President the head of Parliament. “I am a citizen of this country and the President is my President. The executive can certainly make any policy but how do they decide on their own (to not invite the President) when the President is the head of Parliament,” he said.
Article 79 provides that there shall be a Parliament which shall consist of the President and the two Houses – Council of States and House of People.
The bench said: “We are aware why you have filed this petition. Why should we not impose a cost on you as we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32?”
As the court allowed Sukin’s request to withdraw the plea, it recorded in its order that the request was made after the bench refused to entertain the same.
In his PIL, Sukin said the President is the first citizen of India and head of the institution of Parliament, and the Union government and Lok Sabha secretariat have tried to humiliate Murmu by not letting her preside over the inaugural ceremony.
Read: ‘Formulaic undemocratic’: Open letter by ex-bureaucrats, academics skewers Oppn
He also said that the Centre and Lok Sabha secretariat have violated the Constitution which makes the President an integral part of the House. “The respondents (Lok Sabha Secretariat and Union government) have violated Article 79,” he said.
Sukin said the President enjoys certain powers and performs a variety of ceremonial functions and by not inviting her to Sunday’s ceremony, “the inauguration of the new Parliament Building is not according (to) law”.
Alleging “malpractice” behind the decision to keep the President away from the function, the petitioner said: “The Respondents are try(ing) to humiliate the Indian President.”
