Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to inaugurate India’s new parliament building in New Delhi on Sunday, as part of a contentious $2.4 billion renovation of the capital’s historic centre that his detractors have dubbed a “vanity project.”
The Supreme Court on Friday denied a petition asking the Lok Sabha Secretariat to direct that the President, rather than the Prime Minister, inaugurate the new Parliament building on May 28.
“It is not the court’s function to look into,” a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and P S Narasimha stated, dismissing the application.
The PIL was filed by advocate C R Jaya Sukin, who told the bench that no act gives the executive head the authority to inaugurate Parliament. The bench asked him to explain how the President’s duty in addressing the joint session of Parliament is related to the inauguration.
“Please show us how the address is related to the inauguration,” Justice Maheswari instructed the attorney, adding, “Nothing to do.” It is not the court’s responsibility to investigate.”
The action to have it inaugurated by the Prime Minister, according to the counsel, is a “complete violation of Article 79,” which states that there shall be a Parliament for the Union consisting of the President and two Houses to be designated respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.
“The President is the head of Parliament and should open the building because the executive head has no jurisdiction over Parliament.” “The executive head is merely a member of Parliament,” he argued.
“We’ve read Article 79. “We asked you how it was correlating,” the bench said. The attorney stated that no clause grants the head of the executive the authority to inaugurate the Parliament and questioned how the administration could decide on its own to have it unveiled by the Prime Minister.
As the bench began to dictate the ruling, the counsel requested the court to allow him to withdraw the petition if it was considering dismissing it.
Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General, has stated that if allowed to withdraw, he will proceed to the High Court. “Withdrawal would imply that he would go to the High Court and seek the same relief.” Instead, Your Lordships should come to the conclusion that these matters are not justiciable.”
The judge questioned the counsel whether he planned to proceed to the Supreme judge and told him he couldn’t.
The petitioner responded that he will not appeal to the Supreme Court and asked the court not to dismiss it, stating that “dismissing the petition would mean granting the executive certificate.” That is not correct.” The bench then dismissed the petition.
Also Read: https://clipper28.com/en/mortgage-above-7-for-the-first-time-since-march/
