On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected a PIL that asked for an order mandating that President Droupadi Murmu inaugurate the new Parliament building on May 28.
Jaya Sukin sought to have his PIL withdrawn because a vacation bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha was unwilling to hear his argument. The advocate’s request to withdraw his plea was granted by the bench.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Narasimha said to petitioner lawyer Jaya Sukin, “We do not understand why you come with such petitions but we are not interested in entertaining it under Article 32.”The PIL said Lok Sabha Secretariat violated the Constitution by not inviting the President for the inauguration.
“The statement issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat on May 18 and invites issued by the Secretary-General, Lok Sabha, about the inauguration of the new Parliament building, is in violation of the Indian Constitution,” the PIL filed by Sukin said.
“That Prime Minister is appointed by the President and other ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The President of India is authorized to appoint constitutional functionaries such as Governors, Judges of both the Supreme Court and high court, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, chairman and manager of the Union Public Service Commissioner, Chief Election Commissioner, Financial Commissioner, and other Election commissioners,” the plea said.
The Lok Sabha Secretariat, Union Ministry of Home Affairs, and Ministry of Law and Justice were made parties in the case.The plea stated that the respondent’s (Secretary and Union) decision was “illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, whimsical and unfair, an abuse of authority and against the principles of natural justice”.