The Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction for the President to inaugurate the new Parliament building. The bench of justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha informed the petitioner’s counsel, Jaya Sukin, that the court understands the motive behind the petition but is not inclined to entertain it under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Sukin argued that as per Article 79, the President is the executive head of the country and should have been invited for the inauguration. However, he requested The Supreme Court ‘s permission to withdraw the petition if it did not wish to entertain it.
The Centre’s representative, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, stated that if the petition is allowed to be withdrawn, it would be filed in the high court. Eventually, the bench dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
The PIL claimed that the President was being “humiliated” by not being invited to the inauguration, naming the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Union of India as respondents. The petition was filed by an advocate of the Supreme Court amidst controversy over the scheduled inauguration of the new Parliament building by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 28.
In response to the planned boycott of the ceremony by twenty Opposition parties, the ruling NDA parties condemned the decision as “contemptuous” and an affront to the democratic ethos and constitutional values of the nation. The Opposition parties had cited the erosion of democracy in Parliament as the reason for their boycott.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had previously invited the Prime Minister to inaugurate the new building, with the foundation stone being laid by Modi in 2020. During that event, most opposition parties had abstained from participation.
The Supreme Court of India has declined to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requesting the President’s involvement in the inauguration of the new Parliament building. The Supreme Court , represented by justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha, explained to the petitioner’s counsel that while they understand the intention behind the petition, they are not inclined to entertain it under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioner argued that as per Article 79, the President, as the executive head of the country, should have been invited to the inauguration. However, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition if the court did not wish to proceed with it.
The Centre’s representative, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, stated that if the petition was withdrawn, it would be filed in the high court instead.Consequently, the bench dismissed the petition upon its withdrawal.
The PIL alleged that the President was being “humiliated” by not receiving an invitation to the inauguration. The petition was filed by an advocate of the Supreme Court amidst a controversy surrounding the scheduled inauguration by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 28.
In response to the planned boycott of the ceremony by twenty Opposition parties, the ruling NDA parties condemned their decision as “contemptuous” and an affront to the democratic principles and constitutional values of the nation. The Opposition parties cited the erosion of democracy within Parliament as the reason for their boycott.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had previously invited the Prime Minister to inaugurate the new building, and the foundation stone was laid by Modi in 2020. During that event, most opposition parties had refrained from participating.
Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking President’s involvement in new Parliament building inauguration
The Supreme Court of India has recently rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the President’s involvement in the inauguration of the new Parliament building. The bench, comprising justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha, informed the petitioner’s counsel, Jaya Sukin, that although they understood the petitioner’s motives, they were not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioner contended that as per Article 79, the President holds the executive authority of the country and, therefore, should have been invited to the inauguration. However, recognising the court’s lack of interest, Sukin requested permission to withdraw the petition. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, mentioned that if the petition were allowed to be withdrawn, it would be filed in The Supreme Court instead.
