Write Comment     |     E-Mail To a Friend     |     Facebook     |     Twitter     |     Print

Supreme Court declines to hear plea for inauguration of new Parliament building by President Murmu

The Supreme Court on May 26 refused to entertain a petition challenging the inauguration of the new Parliament building by the Prime Minister, and not the President of India.

A Vacation Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and P.S. Narasimha said it was not “inclined” to hear the petition filed by advocate C.R. Jaya Sukin, the petitioner in person.

The petition was urgently listed before the Vacation Bench. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta was appearing for the Union. When Sukin urged the Court to permit him to withdraw the petition, Mehta said the lawyer may then go and file it before another Court and keep the issue alive. Mehta also said the Supreme Court should record a dismissal of the petition in the order to make it conclusive.

“So, what is your interest in filing this petition,” Justice Narasimha asked Sukin. “She is my President. I am a citizen,” Sukin responded.

The lawyer referred to Article 79 of the Constitution which stated that there “shall be a Parliament for the Union, which will consist of the President and two Houses to be called respectively the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha)”.

“What is the connection between Article 79 and the inauguration function,” Justice Maheshwari asked.

“The President is the head of the Parliament. The Prime Minister is only the head of the executive government. It is for the President to inaugurate…” Sukin said. The Court, however, said it could not intervene in the issue on the basis of a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.