The Supreme Court was moved on Thursday seeking direction that the new Parliament building should be inaugurated by the President of India Droupadi Murmu on May 28, stating that the Lok Sabha secretariat has violated the constitution by not inviting the President to inaugurate.
There are protests from different quarters over the scheduled inauguration of the new Parliament building by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 28. At least 21 opposition parties have decided to boycott the PM’s decision to preside over the inauguration ceremony ignoring the President Droupadi Murmu.
The public interest plea by an advocate states that the statement by the Lok Sabha Secretariat on May 18, including the invite by its Secretary General, on the inauguration of the new parliament building is “illegal, arbitrary, high handed, whimsical and unfair, abuse of authority and against the principles of natural justice.”
Pointing to the pivotal position that the President of India holds in the functioning of the Indian State, the PIL has said that the appointments to all the constitutional functionaries including that of the Prime Minister, members of the Council of Ministers, Governors, Judges of both Supreme Court and high courts, Chief Election Commissioner, Election commissioners and others are made by the President.
Making the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice as respondents, the PIL says that the constitution is not being respected as “Parliament is the supreme legislative body of India. The Indian Parliament comprises the President and the two Houses – Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and Lok Sabha (House of the People). The President has the power to summon and prorogue either House of Parliament or to dissolve Lok Sabha,”