The Supreme Court put an end to the legal dispute over the inauguration of the new parliament building. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the petition to inaugurate the new Parliament building by the constitutional head of the United States of India, President Draupadi Murmu.
A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha told petitioner lawyer Jaya Sukin on Friday, “The Supreme Court does not understand why this PIL has been filed! This application cannot be heard in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution.
Read more:
Will the Modi government be under pressure due to the unity of the opposition around the inauguration of the new parliament building?
Expansion of Siddaramaiah Cabinet in Karnataka On Saturday, 24 more may be sworn in
Petitioner Jaya then referred to Article 79 of the Indian Constitution and said, “That Article clearly states that Parliament consists of the President, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Its subsequent clauses provide that the President can summon, adjourn and dissolve the Lok Sabha. Apart from this, you can give speech and message in any meeting of the Parliament or joint session of two meetings. No bill or ordinance gets legal recognition without his approval. However, the new parliament building is being inaugurated without the President, which is an ‘unparliamentary’ move by the central government.
Read more:
Kejri wants to change the alliance policy ‘hands’? Rahul, the chief minister of Delhi asked for the time of the sword
Although President Draupadi Murmu was not invited, 17 parties are with Modi at the inauguration of Sangsad Bhavan
(First all news, right news, every moment. Follow us on Google News,
Twitter and Instagram page)
Tags: Parliament Building Supreme Court refuses entertain PIL inauguration Parliament building President Droupadi Murmu dgtl
