Hyderabad: Don’t fool people in the name of constitution!

Hyderabad: Don’t fool people in the name of constitution!

At the time when this column is being written, almost 20 opposition parties have decided to boycott the opening ceremony of the gorgeous New Parliament Building citing the Constitution of India! Other 25 parties including the BJP have decided to join the event.

Hyderabad : At the time when this column is being written, almost 20 opposition parties have decided to boycott the opening ceremony of the gorgeous New Parliament Building citing the Constitution of India! Other 25 parties including the BJP have decided to join the event.

The 20 opposition parties have taken the decision to remain absent on one ground. All of them are of the view that the new parliament building ought to have been inaugurated by the President of India and not the Prime Minister. And to buttress their argument they cite the Constitution of India.

The Constitution which is oft quoted by some half-baked lawyers -cum-politicians, unfortunately does not specifically say anything with regard to the inauguration of a public building, including the building of a parliament and legislative assemblies. However, by implication the President being the first citizen of the country certainly deserve that honour. Similarly, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha too, being the presiding dignitaries of the parliament stand on the same footing. Next will have the prerogative of the Prime Minister in his capacity of the leader of the House. In the same way, the Governor of a State enjoys the same position in the State like the President over the country.

Therefore, it is apparently desirable that the President in the first instance, Speaker and Chairman in the second instance and the Prime Minister in the third instance ought to inaugurate the new parliament building. In case of a State, this honour should be bestowed on its Governor.

The opposition parties, therefore, cannot be faulted on this ground. But their cunningness and real sinister motives come to the surface when we compare their attitude with a similar instance recently. The new building to house the Secretariat of Telangana government was recently inaugurated by the Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao. There is nothing wrong in the Chief Minister doing so; but the problem comes when the Governor of the State who is the first citizen of the State is not even invited. Similarly, according to the media reports, the BJP party which is an opposition party in the State, too, was not even invited! The ruling BRS then was not sermonised by its political ally AIMIM. Now, the AIMIM has no moral right to find fault with the BJP for not getting the new parliament building inaugurated by the Speaker or Chairman. Assam, Chhattisgarh, Bihar etc., have never invited their Governors for stone laying or inauguration of Assembly buildings. And the opposition bandwagon has always preferred to remain silent.

In the instant case of parliament, not only all members of the parliament have been invited to the historical event but also other dignitaries from judiciary and other fields of the society. Further, not content with the vociferous protests, the opposition has also dragged the matter to the Supreme Court. Their intentions are thus proved beyond doubt that the message they jointly want to send to the rest of the world is that the voice of the opposition is not heard by the ruling party at the Centre.

By doing so, the opposition parties are playing the double standard game. On the one hand, when a State government does not even extend the invitation to the Governor for the inauguration of the State Secretariat building ( not to think of inviting the Governor to be the Chief Guest) and ignores an opposition party totally, they maintain stoic silence while in the case of the inauguration of the parliament, they try to make a mountain out of a mole. The people world over, including of course, the people within India have become wiser by now and therefore, no body is going to buy such worthless rhetoric of the directionless opposition. Better they desist from such chip gimmicks.


In a verdict of far-reaching consequences, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising the Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S Narasimha in a case titled K C Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board has held that the electricity dues of the former property owner can be collected by the Electricity Board from the subsequent owner or auction purchaser of the property.


A constitutional bench headed by Justice K M Joseph has in a recent judgement okayed the traditional sports of taming animals such as bulls and bisons prevalent in the states of Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra .

The court observed that these are traditional sports of India and they deserve to be protected. Hope, all courts in the country would follow this dictum as the Gold Standard while deciding similar cases.


With the swearing in of the Andhra Pradesh Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Senior Advocate K V Viswanathan as the Judges of the Supreme Court and ceremonial farewell to Justices V Ramasubramanian, Ajay Rastogi and K M Joseph who are set to retire during the summer vacation, now the apex court has the full sanctioned strength of 34 Judges.

Before closing for the summer vacation, May 19 was the last working day for the apex court. After summer vacation it will reopen on July 3. Deviating from the tradition of taking up only urgent matters during the Vacation Court hearings, this time, additionally the court would also entertain some 300 fresh regular matters also.


In a case titled, Harini Vs. State of Tamilnadu, a division bench of the Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition of a detenue under Goonda Act.

Justice M.Sundar and Justice Nirmal Kumar held that arrest of a person made without giving him an opportunity to put up his defence clearly violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

The court also observed that the police had failed to ascertain whether the mobile number on which the intimation of arrest was conveyed belonged to the accused or his wife.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories