New Parliament Inauguration: Supreme Court rejected the petition, said- we know what is the purpose of filing the petition

The petition filed in the Supreme Court regarding the inauguration of the new Parliament has been rejected. The Supreme Court reprimanded the lawyer who filed the petition and said that we know what is the purpose of filing the petition. While hearing the matter, Supreme Court Justice Narasimha said that we do not understand why you bring such petitions. We are not interested in considering it under Article 32.

During this, Justice JK Maheshwari asked the lawyer who filed the petition, how is it related to the inauguration? On which it was said on behalf of the lawyer that it completely violates Articles 79 and 87. The President is the head of the Parliament, he should inaugurate the Parliament. The Executive Head is the only Head who needs an opening.

Dissatisfied with the arguments of the lawyer who filed the petition, when the Supreme Court bench was about to dismiss the case, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw his petition. To this, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that the petition should not be allowed to be withdrawn as the counsel would file the same petition in the High Court.

The lawyer who filed the petition on Tushar Mehta’s plea said that he has no plans to approach the High Court. He is withdrawing it so that the dismissal does not become a “certificate”. The bench then recorded in its order that the petitioner, after arguing for some time, decided to withdraw the petition as the court was not inclined to consider the matter.

Let us tell you that by filing a PIL in the Supreme Court, a request was made to direct the Lok Sabha Secretariat to inaugurate the new Parliament House from President Draupadi Murmu. The petition stated that the respondents—the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Union of India—were insulting the President by not inviting him (the President) for the inauguration.