Supreme Court Rejects Plea for President Murmu to Unveil New Building Amid Parliament Row, Petitioner Withdraws Request
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought direction to the Lok Sabha secretariat for the inauguration of the new Parliament building by President Droupadi Murmu on Sunday. The PIL was filed by advocate CR Jaya Sukin, who subsequently requested to withdraw the plea as the bench was prepared to dismiss it.
The opposition parties, consisting of twenty-one political groups, have already decided to boycott the event, alleging that the decision undermines the President’s office and violates the Constitution. However, the vacation bench of justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha was not convinced by the arguments put forth by the petitioner and advocate Sukin. They questioned the connection between the Constitution and the inauguration of the new Parliament building and stated, “You tell us how the provisions of Constitution are related to the inauguration of the new Parliament.”
Supreme Court Declines PIL Seeking President’s Involvement in Parliament Building Inauguration
With the bench ready to dismiss the petition, Sukin sought to withdraw it, and the court allowed the withdrawal. Sukin’s plea in the Supreme Court came amidst an ongoing political controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to preside over the ceremony. On May 18, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla met with Prime Minister Modi and invited him to inaugurate the new Parliament building on May 28. The opposition parties boycotting the event argue that the decision undermines the President’s office and goes against the spirit of the Constitution, while the Union government dismisses these allegations and claims that the boycott decision demonstrates contempt for the essence of democracy.
Representing the Centre in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that if the petition were allowed to be withdrawn, it would be filed in the high court. He further argued that these issues are not justiciable and should be dismissed, as a withdrawal would result in the petitioner approaching the high court again.
The bench questioned Sukin about the reason behind filing the petition and inquired about his interest in the matter. Sukin responded by stating that he believes Article 79 designates the President as the head of Parliament. He expressed his perspective as a citizen, emphasizing that the President is his President, and questioned the executive’s decision to exclude the President from the inaugural ceremony when the President is the head of Parliament.
Article 79 of the Constitution establishes that there shall be a Parliament consisting of the President, the Council of States, and the House of the People.
In response, the bench expressed awareness of the petitioner’s motivations and contemplated imposing costs on him, as they were disinclined to entertain the petition under Article 32.
Controversy Surrounding Prime Minister’s Decision to Preside over the Ceremony
Following the court’s acceptance of Sukin’s request to withdraw the plea, it noted in its order that the request was made after the bench refused to entertain the same.
In his PIL, Sukin argued that the President, as the first citizen of India and the head of the institution of Parliament, was humiliated by the Union government and Lok Sabha secretariat by not allowing her to preside over the inaugural ceremony. He further claimed that the Centre and Lok Sabha secretariat violated the Constitution, which considers the President an integral part of the House. Sukin contended that by not inviting the President to the ceremony, the inauguration of the new Parliament building deviated from legal requirements. He alleged “malpractice” behind the decision to exclude the President from the function, stating, “The respondents are trying to humiliate the Indian President.”
Supreme Court Rejects Plea for President Murmu to Unveil New Building Amid Parliament Row, Petitioner Withdraws Request
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has rejected a plea that sought the involvement of President Droupadi Murmu in the unveiling of the new Parliament building. The petition, filed as a public interest litigation (PIL), requested direction to the Lok Sabha secretariat for the inauguration ceremony. However, advocate CR Jaya Sukin, who filed the plea, later withdrew it as the court prepared to dismiss it.
The decision to boycott the event by twenty-one opposition parties has added to the ongoing controversy. They argue that the move undermines the office of the President and goes against the spirit of the Constitution. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to preside over the ceremony has sparked criticism and fueled the opposition’s stance. The boycott decision has been met with a counter argument from the Union government, which dismissed the allegations and accused the opposition of showing contempt for the essence of democracy.
During the court proceedings, the bench comprising justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha expressed skepticism regarding the connection between the Constitution and the inauguration of the new Parliament building. They questioned the petitioner and advocate Sukin’s arguments, stating, “You tell us how the provisions of the Constitution are related to the inauguration of the new Parliament.”
As the bench leaned towards dismissing the petition, Sukin opted to withdraw it. The court granted Sukin’s request, and the PIL was subsequently withdrawn. This development comes amidst an ongoing political controversy surrounding the decision to exclude President Murmu from the inauguration ceremony. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had previously met with Prime Minister Modi and extended an invitation for him to preside over the event.