The appeal requested a directive from the Supreme Court to facilitate Murmu's inauguration...
Digital Desk: On Friday, the
Supreme Court declined to consider a PIL asking for a directive to the Lok Sabha Secretariat over
President Droupadi Murmu's inauguration of the new Parliament building, stating that it is not the role of the court to look into such matters.
The petitioner's in-person attorney Jaya Sukin was informed by a vacation bench of justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha that while the court understood the petition's purpose and method of filing, it was not inclined to grant it under Article 32 of the Constitution.
People have the option to appeal to the highest court under Article 32 if they believe their fundamental rights have been violated.
"What made you want to submit this petition, exactly? We can appreciate your motivation for bringing such petitions. We apologise, but we are not interested in considering this petition following Article 32 of the Constitution. Thank you, we are not imposing expenses," the court informed Sukin.
Justice Narasimha stated, "It is not the role of the court to look into this."
Sukin asserted that the president should have been invited since, according to Article 79, she serves as the country's executive head.
The appeal requested a directive from the Supreme Court to facilitate Murmu's inauguration, noting that "the President is the first citizen of India and head of the institution of Parliament."
"According to Article 79 of the Constitution, there shall be a Parliament for the Union, which shall be composed of the President and the two Houses, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of People). But the Respondents are not abiding by the Indian Constitution," the PIL said, arguing that the President should inaugurate the new structure rather than the Prime Minister.
The bench informed him that although the court was aware of Article 79, it was unclear how it related to the building's dedication.
Sukin continued by saying that he should be permitted to withdraw the petition if the court decides not to consider it.
If the plea is allowed to be withdrawn, it will be filed in the high court, according to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the Centre.
The bench then gave the following order: "After spending some time listening to the petitioner in person, we were not inclined to accept his submissions. Due to the aforementioned issue, the petitioner has asked for permission to revoke this Writ Petition. The petitioner's writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is hereby dismissed as withdrawn in light of the foregoing."
The Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Union of India are being accused of "humiliating" the president by refusing to invite her to the inauguration, according to a petition that surfaced amid a heated debate between the BJP-led Centre and about 20 opposition parties over who should inaugurate the new Parliament building.
On May 28, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is slated to dedicate the structure.
The "sidelining" of the president has prompted twenty opposition parties to decide to abstain from the ceremony.
A statement from 19 political parties on Wednesday stated, "When the soul of democracy has been sucked out of Parliament, we find no value in a new building."
The BJP-led NDA responded by criticising the "contemptuous" opposition decision.
Parties affiliated with the ruling NDA said in a statement that the act was "more than just disrespectful; it is a blatant affront to the democratic ethos and constitutional values of our great nation."
Om Birla, the speaker of the Lok Sabha, recently met with the prime minister and extended an invitation for him to inaugurate the newly constructed building. Even when Modi lay the building's foundation stone in 2020, most of the opposition parties skipped the ceremony.
Leave A Comment