On May 25, Advocate CR Jaya Sukin filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Lok Sabha Secretariat to have the President of India Droupadi Murmu inaugurate the new parliament building on May 28 instead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In the plea, advocate Sukin claimed that the invites issued by the Secretary General of Lok Sabha for the inaugural function of the new building violated the Constitution of India. It read, “That President is the First Citizen of India this regard and head of the institution of Parliament…That all important decisions regarding the country are taken in the name of the Indian President.”
It further stated that the Parliament, which consists of the President and two houses, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, holds the supreme legislative authority of India. It further added that the President has the authority to summon and prorogue the Parliament or dissolve the house.
The plea further cited Article 79 of the Constitution of India to contend that the President is an integral part of the Parliament and should not be kept away from the inauguration. The petitioner further accused the Lok Sabha Secretariat of malpractice.
Congress and other opposition parties targeting the Central govt over the inauguration by PM Modi
19 opposition parties on Wednesday issued a joint statement saying they will boycott the inauguration of the new Parliament building on May 28, saying, “When the soul of democracy has been sucked out from the Parliament, we find no value in a new building.”
Pressing on the presence of President Murmu, the opposition parties indicated that PM Modi inaugurating the new Parliament building without the President was an insult to the President and the Indian constitution. Interestingly, what the parties said in their statement and what Sukin said in the petition are very similar.
The statement read, “The President is not only the head of the state in India but also an integral part of the Parliament. She summons, prorogues, and addresses the Parliament. She must assent for an act of Parliament to take effect. The parliament cannot function without her. Yet, the Prime Minister has decided to inaugurate the new parliament building without her. This undignified act insults the high office of the President and violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It undermines the spirit of inclusion which saw the nation celebrate its first Adivasi woman President.”
Notably, opposition parties have a history of boycotting the President’s address in the parliament. Several opposition parties had boycotted the address by President Murmu as well as the previous President Ram Nath Kovind’s address.
Interestingly, the opposition parties, who then boycotted the President’s address in their protest against the BJP, are now fighting for the dignity and honour of the President.