Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Inauguration of New Parliament Building

In a recent development, the Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the inauguration of the new Parliament building. The petitioner had raised objections, arguing that the inauguration by the Prime Minister violated the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court quickly disposed of the matter, stating that it was not inclined to hear the plea. This article provides an overview of the events surrounding the dismissal and discusses the implications for the government and the opposition.

The Dismissal of the Plea

The plea challenging the inauguration of the new Parliament building was dismissed by the Supreme Court after a short hearing. The court showed a lack of inclination to entertain the matter and questioned why the petitioner did not approach the high court first. The petitioner sought to withdraw the plea, which further reinforced the court’s decision. The plea was filed under Article 79 of the Constitution, contending that the inauguration by the Prime Minister was violative of the Constitution.

Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments. The court emphasized that the decision of who inaugurates the Parliament building falls within the prerogative of the government and that there was no specific provision in the Constitution stating that it should be the President. The court also reminded the petitioner about the importance of following due procedure and exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the Supreme Court.

Reaction from Legal Experts and Opposition

Legal experts anticipated the swift dismissal of the plea due to its lack of merit. The Supreme Court’s question regarding approaching the high court indicated the court’s preference for matters to follow the established judicial hierarchy. Despite the dismissal, the opposition parties maintained their boycott stance, asserting their commitment to democratic principles. They continued to question the government’s decision and expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s ruling.

Implications and Future Outlook

With the Supreme Court’s dismissal, the matter finds closure in the judicial sphere. However, it remains to be seen if the opposition parties will reconsider their boycott decision in light of the court’s ruling. The inauguration of the new Parliament building holds historic significance, and the government calls for unity in commemorating this milestone. The Supreme Court’s reminder of its limited role in such matters reinforces the principle of separation of powers.

Way Forward

The Supreme Court’s swift dismissal of the plea against the inauguration of the new Parliament building has dealt a blow to the opposition’s efforts to challenge the government’s decision. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have approached the high court first and found no merit in the arguments presented. While the opposition parties have maintained their boycott stance, the government has called for unity and highlighted the historic significance of the event. As the inauguration day approaches, the nation awaits the outcome and the future trajectory of this political controversy.