/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24696805/LIPMAN_JL74047.JPG "VW ID Buzz Introduces Three-Row Electric Microbus For The US With More Power And Space")
Supreme Court Rejects PIL: The petition filed in the Supreme Court on the matter of the inauguration of the new Parliament House was rejected on Friday (May 26). The Supreme Court refused to hear this PIL and reprimanded the petitioner. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court told the lawyer who filed the PIL that we know why this petition has been filed. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to look into such petitions.
The Supreme Court while hearing this matter said that we do not want to interfere in this matter. If you want, you can go to the High Court. However, the petitioner lawyer decided to withdraw his appeal instead of going to the High Court. Let us know which arguments given in the PIL were rejected by the Supreme Court and refused to hear.
Article 32 quote
A bench of Supreme Court Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha asked petitioner advocate CR Jaya Sukin, what is your role in this? On which the lawyer said that the President is the head of all the MPs. He is also my President.
On this, the Supreme Court said that we know why you file such petitions. We are not inclined to hear this petition under Article 32.
What is Article 32?
Under Article 32 (Article 32), every citizen of India gets the right to file a petition in the Supreme Court for the implementation of the fundamental rights received from the constitution.
About Article 79
After this, the petitioner’s lawyer cited Article 79 of the Constitution. Article 79 states that there shall be a Parliament for the Union, which shall consist of the President and the two Houses. On this, the Supreme Court asked how Article 79 is related to the inauguration?
In response to this question, the lawyer said that the President is the head of the Parliament, he should inaugurate the new Parliament House.
Article 85 and 87 cited
Along with this, CR Jaya Sukin, citing Article 85 and Article 87, said that the President has the legislative right to call a session of Parliament. Along with this, he addresses in the Parliament. The Supreme Court did not agree with these arguments of the lawyer and the petition was dismissed.
read this also:
New Parliament Inauguration: ‘Why not impose fine on you’, Supreme Court dismisses petition demanding President to inaugurate new parliament
