It is actually unclear as to why the Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking direction that the new Parliament building be inaugurated by the President and not the head of the executive, the Prime Minister.
The petitioner had rightly referred to Article 79 of the Constitution of India, which says the Parliament comprises President at the top and the two Houses namely Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are expected to be under him or her. The petitioner had also cited Article 87, which says the Parliament session commences with a Special Address by the President. But the apex court bench wondered how the provisions cited were related to the inauguration of the new building.
As was normal, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said the petitioner should not be allowed to withdraw the petition as he would file the same petition in the High Court. But the kind-hearted judges paid no heed to the SG's appeal. Incidentally Article 79 of the Constitution points out that the President, the first citizen of the nation, has the power to summon and prorogue the Parliament sessions. It is the President who appoints the Prime Minister and other Ministers and all executive actions are taken in the name of the President. So, not inviting the President for the ceremony is a humiliation and a violation of the Constitution.
President Droupadi Murmu was not even invited to the inauguration of the new Parliament building. As many as 19 opposition parties boycotted the inauguration ceremony saying Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to ignore the President was not only ‘a grave insult but a direct assault on our democratic setup as enshrined in the Constitution’. The Parliament cannot function without the President. The boycotting signatories included the Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Aam Aadmi Party, Trinamool Congress, Janata Dal (United), Nationalist Congress Party, Shiv Sena (Udhav Thackeray), Communist Party of India (Marxist), Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Communist Party of India, Indian Union Muslim League, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, National Conference, Kerala Congress (Mani), Revolutionary Socialist Party, Rashtriya Lok Dal, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi.
Strangely, the Biju Janata Dal decided joyously to participate by choosing to remain oblivious to the fact that the Odisha tribal woman President was being offended openly. Not one creature from the Odisha ruling party raised even a feeble voice to express displeasure. Participating in the event is no sin, but not expressing anxiety is a small sin on the part of BJD. There is a great deal of murmur now that there is some clandestine give-n-take arrangement between the BJD and the BJP up there, for which an absolute silence was maintained.
Knowing people say it would be foolhardy to expect Prime Minister Modi, whose pet project is the new Parliament building, to let go the opportunity to bask in the limelight and extract maximum mileage from the event. At a time when the institution of Parliament is seriously imperilled, there are perhaps two things that are more important than the politicking over who gets to inaugurate the new building. The first is the new building itself -- how and why it was conceived and what it symbolises. Second is the choice of Hindutva ideologue VD Savarkar’s birth anniversary being chosen to be the date of inauguration. Even architect Gautam Bhatia wrote at the time that the process was approved in a ‘veil of secrecy mired in an opaque processes'. This is in contrast to the way things work in other democracies, where such momentous architectural changes are ‘carefully considered, opened for discussion, and formulated after a consensus'.
Building new Parliament hoses in democracies is not an entirely uncommon proposition, but such a rush to approve designs and the complete lack of public engagement is unheard of. It is instructive to consider the example of the Parliament House in Australia’s capital Canberra, which took over a decade to plan and complete. In 1975, the Australian Parliament established a joint standing committee for planning, design and construction of the building. On its recommendations, a two-stage design competition was announced in 1979. A total of 379 entries from 32 countries were submitted, of which five were allowed to the second stage. The winner was announced in 1980 and subsequently the design and construction approved by the House of Representatives. The new building was officially opened in 1988. The process is in complete contrast with the undemocratic manner in which the new Parliament building in India was approved and got built.
When Hindu religious priests of upper caste were conducting the inauguration of the new Parliament building, it was suspected by a few why Droupadi Murmu is not presiding over the function. This suspicion, though, appeared misplaced. The truth was that unless given the centre-stage, Modi would have no chance to perform theatrics to prove supremacy. He would not like to get lost in dark as the spotlight would fall on the President if she inaugurated the former’s dream structure. The ‘Adheenams' would never hand over the ‘Sengol', a monarchical sceptre symbolising power, to a simple tribal woman.
But mainly, the new building is intended to symbolise both Modi’s legacy and also the believable ancient origins of India’s democracy. This was why it was imperative for the new building to come up in time for the 2024 general elections despite the deaths and disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The other big issue was the choice of Savarkar’s birth anniversary for the inauguration. On one level, it reaffirmed the link of the current Government with the exclusivist idea of Hindutva for which Savarkar is best-known. This open Hindufication of the nation is a deviation of the Government’s public rhetoric of emphasising inclusivity encapsulated in slogans such as ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas'.
Over the violently-kicked-up row, the most pathetically servile statement President Madam Murmu made has devastated many an Indian heart. As if held at gunpoint, she parroted out, "I am deeply satisfied" that Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the new structure. Several opposition parties had boycotted the event over Modi's decision to inaugurate the new Parliament House and not the President. Obviously, she has been forced by the BJP honchos to vomit out this statement penned by the headless speech writer employed by the saffron gang. Madam Murmu, having been a ‘dream come true' beneficiary, would not have any other choice than to blurp these words.
