[ad_1]
The petition has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the ongoing dispute regarding the inauguration of the new parliament. A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court stating that New Parliament House should be inaugurated by the President. The Prime Minister cannot inaugurate it in his place. The Supreme Court was asked to issue instructions to the government for this. 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.
Referring to Article 32 and 79
dismissing the petition The Supreme Court made it clear that it cannot conduct a hearing under it. Supreme Court Justice Narasimha said, we are not interested in hearing this petition under Article 32. After this, Article 79 of the Constitution was mentioned on behalf of the petitioner. In which it has been said that the Parliament consists of the President and both the Houses. On this, the Supreme Court said that what does Article 79 have to do with the inauguration of the Parliament House? Was that ‘‘Article 79 of the Constitution states that there shall be a Parliament for the Union (India), consisting of a President and two Houses, the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. But the defendants are not following the Indian Constitution.’’ In this, referring to Article 79 of the Constitution, it was said that the President is an integral part of the parliamentary form of democracy and therefore the intervention of the Apex Court is “democracy of this nation”. It is necessary to protect.’’ Also, Article 87 states that at the beginning of every session of Parliament, the President shall address both Houses of Parliament and inform them of the purpose of calling its meeting. But the respondents (Lok Sabha Secretariat and Centre) are trying to humiliate the President.’’
[ad_2]