Parliament building inauguration not for courts to look into: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Secretariat and Union government to get the new Parliament building inaugurated by the President instead of PM Narendra Modi, a reason cited by Congress-led 20 opposition parties to boycott the ceremony scheduled for Sunday morning.
A vacation bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and P S Narasimha were highly critical of the PIL petitioner, advocate C R Jaya Sukin, and said it is not within the remit of the courts to inquire who should be inaugurating the new Parliament building. "it is not the function of the courts to look into such issues," it said while refusing to entertain the public interest litigation.
When Sukin incoherently and unsuccessfully attempted to link provisions of Articles 79 and 87of the Constitution to argue that President, as the head of Parliament, alone is entitled to inaugurate the new Parliament building, the bench peppered him with searching questions - “You seem to have all the time in the world. What is there in this PIL? What is your interest in this? How could you challenge inauguration? What have we come to?”
When Sukin said that he as a citizen of the country wants a constitutionally entitled President to inaugurate, the bench said, “We know why you file such petitions. We are not inclined to interfere with (the inauguration) that too in a petition of this nature under Article 32. How Article 79 is relevant for the inauguration (of the Parliament building)? You are an advocate petitioner. Please show how inauguration (of Parliament building) is related to the address of both Houses of Parliament by the President (Article 87)? It has nothing to do (with inauguration). It is not the function of the court to look into such issues."
With the writing on the wall clear that the court is going to dismiss the PIL, Sukin requested the court to permit him to withdraw the petition. Finding solicitor general Tushar Mehta present in the court, the bench wanted to know whether he had something to say on the issue. Mehta said, “Permitting the petitioner to withdraw would mean he would go to the High Courts and pray for the same relief. Please conclude that these issues raised in the PIL are not justiciable.”
The bench asked Sukin whether he intended to move any HC after withdrawing his PIL from the SC. “If you intend to do so, we will curtail you.” Sukin said he would not approach any HC on this issue. “But a dismissal would mean a certificate to the Executive (on inauguration by the PM),” he said. The bench in its order said, “After hearing for quite some time, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition because we were not inclined to interfere. Hence, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
Sukin in the past had filed many PILs, including one seeking a direction to the Election Commission to bring back paper ballots for elections by junking the EVMs and another seeking a direction to the Union government to impose President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh. One of his PILs challenging validity of Section 124A of IPC (sedition) is tagged with other pending petitions.