Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to inaugurate the new Parliament building on May 28, the date marking the birth anniversary of Hindu Rashtra proponent V.D. Savarkar, on Thursday, a Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking its directions that the inauguration be done at the hands of the President of India.
On Wednesday, as many as 19 Opposition parties announced that they will be boycotting the inauguration ceremony.
They feel that the Prime Minister’s decision to inaugurate the new Parliament building by himself, “completely sidelining President Murmu, is not only a grave insult but a direct assault on our democracy.”
It is worth mentioning here that in the warrant of precedence, President Droupadi Murmu occupies the number one position, and PM Modi occupies the third, after Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
So is it completely wrong on the Prime Minister’s part to inaugurate the new Parliament building, and the President to be kept out of reckoning and not even be invited to the function?
“There is no protocol or rule or circular or anything which says that the President shall inaugurate the new Parliament building or any building for that matter,” says former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha PDT Achary.
“In the absence of any rules or guidelines, anybody can inaugurate the new Parliament building. But, then it is the Prime Minister who takes the final decision on this. The PM will decide who shall inaugurate the building. He alone can decide that the President shall inaugurate the building. And he alone can also decide that he will inaugurate the building. The final decision lies with the PM and not with anybody else,” Achary added.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave has a different stand, similar to the one that has been taken by the Opposition. Dave claims that by sidelining President Murmu, the government has insulted the high office of the President and violated the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India.
“The President, who is the Constitutional head, is omnipresent in governance. Under the Constitution, the executive power of the Union of India rests with the President. The President is the head of the armed forces and Article 53 is very clear that ministers and all other officers are under the President of India, which also includes the PM,” said Dave.
“Every contract by virtue of Article 299 which the Government of India signs has to be in the name of the President of India. So every contract for the construction of the new Parliament building must have been in the name of the President.”
“Parliament is a symbol of democracy and a symbol of the Indian republic. When you are speaking of the Indian republic then the President is the uppermost authority and the Prime Minister comes under him/her. Under the constitutional scheme, it would be highly improper for PM Modi to engage in the inauguration keeping President Murmu away.”
Also, conventions are part of the constitutional framework and the constitutional scheme. So, while everything may not be written in the Constitution, conventions have to be followed.
“And by all conventions, for the last 76 years, the President has always been uppermost in everything that the executive and the Government of India have done. Therefore you cannot even by convention keep the President out. It’s constitutionally improper, may not be illegal, when it directly affects the constitutional ethos by which we are supposed to live. And it is definitely against all constitutional conventions. It’s an insult.”
When asked about what role does Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has in inviting the PM to do the honours, Achary stated that Speaker has no role in this.
“The Speaker is the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha. This is a building that has been constructed by the Government of India. The expenditure for the construction of the building has not been borne by Parliament. The Government must have requested him to invite the PM for the inauguration.”
But then Parliament consists of two houses– Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha– and the President.
But where is the Vice President and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Achary asks
“Both should jointly invite the PM. That would have been better,” adding, “but if the Vice President is part of the ceremony then the PM cannot inaugurate the building and that is why the Vice President has been left out.”
Referring to the Warrant of Precedence, Achary explains that if the Vice President is invited then he will have to inaugurate as the precedence goes to the one who occupies the number two position.
“So it’s better that he is not invited although he is the Chairman of the other House. Certainly he should have been there… So because of this warrant of precedence, he has not been invited.”
“And the President has not been invited because the Prime Minister decides that the building will be inaugurated by him and the PM is the only authority who can decide these things.”
On the Opposition raising the issue and announcing a boycott of the ceremony, Achary says that there is a general feeling that on such an important occasion for an important building like the Parliament house where future parliaments will function the inauguration should be done by the President, who is the Head of the State.
“The Constitution says that the President is part of Parliament. It would have been proper if the President inaugurated the building. The Opposition is expressing that feeling but the point is that these matters are decided by the Prime Minister. He is the highest decision-making authority in the country. And therefore he decides.”
However, Dave says that this is not the first time that the PM Modi is insulting a constitutional functionary. “When Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was sworn in last year the PM remained absent because he was campaigning in Himachal Pradesh. It is unheard of that the PM would not attend the swearing in of the Chief Justice of India, who occupies a very very powerful position under the Constitution. So Mr Modi has his own way of functioning which is not proper, it is disappointing and disturbing.”