Supreme Court: In a public interest litigation filed by Advocate CR Jaya Sukin seeking direction that the inauguration of the new Parliament building should be done by the President of India and not the Prime Minister of India, the vacation Bench of JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha, JJ. said that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition and refused to entertain the PIL.
The petitioner argued that the statement of the Lok Sabha Secretariat has been issued in an arbitrary manner, without proper application of mind. Further, he referred to Article of the stating that the Parliament comprises of the President and two houses. President is the first citizen of India. It is the President who appoints the Prime Minister and other Ministers, and all executive actions are taken in the name of the President. It was argued not inviting the President for the ceremony is a humiliation and a violation of the .
The petitioner was seeking any “direction, observation or suggestion” to the Lok Sabha Secretariat that the inauguration should be done by the President, as the Lok Sabha Secretariat violated the Constitution by not inviting the President for the inauguration.
Justice Narasimha said that “we don’t understand why you come with such petitions; we are not interested in entertaining it under Article 32”.Thus, the petitioner withdrew the petition, as the Court was not inclined to entertain the matter.
Source: Press
The post appeared first on .