In the ongoing dispute over the inauguration of the new parliament, the petition has been rejected by the Supreme Court. A public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court and it was said that the opening of the new Parliament House should be done by the President. The Prime Minister cannot inaugurate it in his place. The Supreme Court was asked to instruct the government to do so. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not interfere in the matter. This petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner citing Article 32 and Article 79.
Articles 32 and 79 mentioned
By dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court made it clear that it cannot hear it. High Court Judge Narasimha said that we are not interested in hearing this petition under Article 32. Following this, Article 79 of the Constitution was mentioned on behalf of the petitioner. In which it has been said that Parliament is composed of the President and both Houses. In this regard, the Supreme Court said that what does article 79 have to do with the inauguration of Parliament House?
The petitioner gave these arguments
It was said in the PIL that “Article 79 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Parliament for the Union (India), consisting of the President and two Houses, the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha.” But the defendants are not following the Constitution of India.” In it, citing Article 79 of the Constitution, it was said that the President is an integral part of the parliamentary form of democracy and hence the intervention of the higher court it was necessary to protect the “democracy of this nation”. In addition, Article 87 provides that at the beginning of each session of Parliament, the President will address both Houses of Parliament and inform them of the purpose of calling their meeting. But the defendants They (Secretariat and Lok Sabha Center) are trying to humiliate the president.