SC junks PIL for inauguration of new Parl building by President
Says it is not a function of the court to look into this
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Secretariat for inauguration of the new Parliament building by President Droupadi Murmu, saying it is not the court’s function to look into it.
A vacation bench of justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha told petitioner inperson advocate Jaya Sukin that the court understands why and how the petition was filed and that it is not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Article 32 gives individuals the right to approach the top court when they feel they have been deprived of their fundamental rights.
“What is your interest in filing this petition? We understand
The bench said that the court understands why and how the petition was filed and that it is not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
why you have come with such petitions. Sorry, we are not interested in entertaining this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Be grateful, we are not imposing costs,” the court told Sukin.
“It is not a function of the court to look into this,” Justice Narasimha said.
Sukin said under Article 79, the President is the executive head of the country and she should have been invited.
“The President is the first citizen of India and head of the institution of Parliament,” the petition noted and sought a direction from the Supreme Court to facilitate the inauguration by Murmu.
“That Article 79 of the Constitution states that there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President
and the two Houses-Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of People (Lok Sabha). But the Respondents are not following Indian Constitution,” the PIL said, while pitching for the inauguration of the new building by the President instead of the Prime Minister.
The bench told him the court understands Article 79 but how is it connected to inauguration of the building.
Sukin then said if the court does not wish to entertain the petition, he be allowed to withdraw it.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said if the petition is allowed to be withdrawn, it will be filed in the high court.
The bench then ordered, “After hearing the petitionerin-person for some time, we were not inclined to accept his submissions. Facing the said difficulty, the petitioner has sought leave to withdraw this Writ Petition. In view of above, the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner stands dismissed as withdrawn.”
The petition that came amid an escalating confrontation between the BJP-led Centre and some 20 opposition parties over who should inaugurate the new Parliament building, said the respondents - the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Union of India - are “humiliating” the president by not inviting her for the inauguration.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to inaugurate the building on May 28.
Twenty opposition parties have decided to boycott the ceremony to protest the “sidelining” of the president.
Meanwhile, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Friday claimed there is no documented evidence of Lord Mountbatten, C Rajagopalachari and Jawaharlal Nehru describing the ‘Sengol’ as a symbol of transfer of power by the British to India.
He also alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his drum-beaters are using the ceremonial sceptre for their political ends in Tamil Nadu.
The ‘Sengol’ will be installed close to the Chair of the Lok Sabha speaker after the new Parliament building is inaugurated by Modi on May 28, an event 20 Opposition parties, including the Congress, are boycotting.
On Twitter, Ramesh said, “The sceptre is now being used by the PM (prime minister) and his drum-beaters for their political ends in Tamil Nadu.
This is typical of this brigade that embroiders facts to suit its twisted objectives. The real question is why is President Droupadi Murmu not being allowed to inaugurate the new Parliament.”
He claimed that a majestic sceptre conceived of by a religious establishment in the Madras province and crafted in Madras city (now Chennai) was indeed presented to Nehru in August 1947.
“There is no documented evidence whatsoever of Mountbatten, Rajaji and Nehru describing this sceptre as a symbol of transfer of British power to India. All claims to this effect are plain and simple -- bodgus,” he said.
“Wholly and completely manufactured in the minds of a few and dispersed into WhatsApp, and now to the drum-beaters in the media. Two of the finest Rajaji scholars with impeccable credentials have expressed surprise,” the Congress general secretary communications said.