0

Analysis of the constitutional provision of Article 122 with regards to suspension of members of parliament

Blog , , , , ,

Introduction :

During the winter session of the parliament, more than 145 members of the parliament were suspended on account of opposition to the central government between December 14 and December 21, 2023.  This firstly causes a functional calamity in the parliament and also affects the roles and responsibilities of the MPs. The suspended members are barred from entering the chambers of parliament, including the lobby and gallery. They are also restricted from participating in sittings of Parliamentary Committees. Any notice or business listed under their name will not be under operational conditions during the suspension[1]. Some claim the suspension is a consequence of the Opposition’s demand for a statement in parliament by the government over the security breach[2].

In total, over 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha were suspended and over 46 from the Rajya Sabha. This marks as the highest number of suspensions in the parliament. Crucial bills have been passed at this time of suspension including the telecommunications bill and the criminal law reform bills[3].

The power to suspend :

It is within the authority of both Houses of Parliament to punish disobedient members in order to maintain their uninterrupted operations. This authority is granted in order to make sure the Houses run well and to punish those who cause chaos.

As a general rule, the Presiding officer, i.e the Speaker of both the houses should maintain peace and order so that the House can function smoothly. To ensure that, he/she has the right to withdraw a member from the house.

In the Lok Sabha, The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha provides for the provisions relating to suspension, withdrawal and reprimand from lok sabha due to unruly behaviour[4].

  • Rule 373, the speaker can direct a member to withdraw immediately from the house in case of any misconduct. The members who are ordered to withdraw remain absent for a day’s sitting.
  • Rule 374 provides for the speaker to call out the members who disregard the authority of the chair or abuses the rules. Such members will be suspended for a period not exceeding the session.
  • Rule 374A was added in 2001 which states that if any member through their actions or causes any gross violation will be automatically suspended by the speaker for a period of either 5 consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less.

According to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha)[5], the members of the Rajya Sabha will be suspended through the procedure mentioned in the following procedure :

  • Rule 255 states that the presiding officer can invoke the suspension of the MP. The chairman can suspend if in his opinion is behaving through misconduct or is causing disorder.
  • Rule 256 provides that the chairman can suspend a member from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session.

Constitutional validity of suspension of MPs :

The true essence of Indian Democracy is the feature of separation of powers. This means, the executive, legislature and judiciary are its own bodies and either of them can interfere. The roles of these bodies cannot be interchanged or taken upon.

However, the constitution of India provides for the Judicial Review, which allows the judiciary to look into any reform and suggest the government. Similarly, the constitution also ensures that the powers of the bodies are not overlapped under Article 122.

It states that:

  1. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament

(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure

(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers  

The Supreme Court in various instances have upheld the validity of the proceedings of the parliament on the ground that it is permissible under Article 122. Article 122 set the foundation principle to not overlap the functions of the judiciary and the legislature.

Article 122 acts as an immunity to the Parliament and a restriction on the judiciary.

Judicial Pronouncements

In the case of Ramdas Athawale v Union of India[6], the hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Article 122(2),  the decision of the Speaker in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure and the conduct of business is final and binding on every Member of the House. The facts of the case was that the speaker adjourned the house and resumed the meeting after a while. The court found that the irregularity of proceedings was not established.

The court also found that, “The courts cannot go into the lawfulness of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament. The Constitution aims at maintaining a fine balance between the legislature, executive and judiciary. The object of the constitutional scheme is to ensure that each of the constitutional organs function within their respective assigned sphere”. The same principle was followed in the case of Satish Chandra v Speaker, Lok Sabha[7] where the court held that it is well used in the language of Article 122 that the courts cannot interfere with the proceedings of the parliament.

In the Allahabad High Court, the question arose in the case of Naveen Gupta V Union of India[8] was whether the votes given by lok sabha members were valid or not. The court stated that, the ability to answer such question is beyond the scope and control of the judiciary and judicial review presented by the constitution.

The court opined that:

“ In our opinion, these are not matters for judicial review in view of the specific provision in Article 122(1) of the Constitution”

Article 212 of the Constitution provides for the same rules of court interference in the matters of state legislature. The Hon’ble supreme court in M. S. M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha[9] held that the validity of proceedings inside the state legislature on the grounds of not following proper procedure cannot be challenged in court. The court stated that, the state legislature has its special jurisdiction, and no court can interfere into that. Furthermore, in the case of Kihoto Holloahan, stated that the state legislature has the same immunity from mere irregularities of procedure.

 The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Raja Ram Pal V Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha and Ors[10] laid down the twin test to contemplate Article 122 of the Constitution. The test was that unless there is illegality in the proceedings, the court would not interfere. The court stated that irregularities in procedure and unconstitutionality of the proceedings would be accepted as the text only mention the illegality of the proceeding to be barred.

It stated that “ Any attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the court’s jurisdiction to examination of the Parliament’s procedure in case of unconstitutionality, as opposed to illegality would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (whatever has not been included has by implication been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone of “irregularity of procedure” does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality or unconstitutionality”

In another landmark case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, it was held that the constitution ensures that there is adequate separation of powers as it is upto the legislature’s hand to decide their own proceedings. The ambit of the court would go to the extent of ensuring proper procedure has been established and if there are irregularities, such shouldn’t be illegal in nature.

In the recent case of Rojer Mathew (S) v. South Indian Bank Ltd[11], the court agreed with the previous interpretation of Article 122 as providing immunity to the legislature. It stated that India is governed by constitutional supremacy and judicial review is part of the basic structure of the constitution. It quoted :

“Any exclusion of judicial review has to be understood in the context in which it has been mandated under a specific provision of the constitution. Hence the provisions contained in article 122 which protect an alleged irregularity of procedure in the proceedings in Parliament being questioned cannot extend to a substantive illegality or a violation of a constitutional mandate.”

Conclusion :

In a country like India where democracy prevails from time to time, it is challenging to shun down the voices of MPs. However, the arbitrariness and the power vested upon the speaker of the houses creates a dynamic view for the definition of democracy. Although the aspect of suspension cannot be questioned by the judiciary, it is yet to be clarified whether the same is legal or not. As per the rules of the houses, the speaker has unprecedented power to suspend or withdraw any member he wishes to. The main conflict of interest among such thought is that the suspension can be purely based on the speaker’s opinion and thoughts. This on the outlook seems arbitrary and unreasonable. However, it is clear that the Court’s scope on challenging such is beyond the powers mentioned in the Constitution.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Sounak Mukhopadhyay, 141 Opposition Mps Suspended So Far : Are They Allowed To Enter Parliament? Check List Of Restriction, LIVEMINT (Dec 20, 2023) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/141-opposition-mps-suspended-so-far-are-they-allowed-to-enter-parliament-check-list-of-restrictions-11703057026922.html

[2] DHNS, Parliament, Democracy in suspension, DECCANHERALD (Dec 20,2023) https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/editorial/parliament-democracy-in-suspension-2818157

[3] PRS Legislative Research, Winter Session Snapshot: Record Number of Lok Sabha MPs Suspended; No Bills Sent to Committees, THEWIRE (Dec 23, 2023) https://thewire.in/government/winter-session-snapshot-record-number-of-lok-sabha-mps-suspended-no-bills-sent-to-committees

[4] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, 15th edition, https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/66/1/Rules_Procedure_LokSabha.pdf

[5] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), 9th edition https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/LegislativeSection/LegislativeRules/English_2052022english_3092021rules_pro.pdf

[6] (2010) 4 SCC 1

[7] (2014) SCC 2 178

[8] (1999) ALR 36 328

[9] AIR 1960 SC 1186

[10] (2007) SCC 3 184

[11] 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1456

0

Uniform Marriage Age of Men and Women.

Articles , , ,

Introdcution:

The legal age of marriage in India is 18 for women and 21 for men. This has been the case since 1978, when the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act was amended. However, there is a growing movement to raise the minimum age of marriage for women to 21, in line with the age for men.There are several reasons why this is being advocated. First, it is argued that raising the age of marriage will give women more time to complete their education and develop their careers. Second, it is argued that it will reduce the risk of maternal mortality and morbidity, as women’s bodies are not fully developed until they are in their early 20s. Third, it is argued that it will help to break down gender stereotypes and promote gender equality. There are some who argue against raising the age of marriage for women. They argue that it will interfere with people’s freedom to choose when to marry. They also argue that it will not have a significant impact on maternal mortality, as most child marriages are not registered and therefore do not fall under the purview of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

The debate over the uniform marriage age of men and women is likely to continue for some time. However, the arguments in favor of raising the age of marriage for women are compelling. By giving women more time to develop their education and careers, and by reducing the risk of maternal mortality, a uniform marriage age of 21 would be a positive step for gender equality in India. In addition to the arguments mentioned above, there are other benefits to raising the minimum age of marriage for women. For example, it would give women more time to develop their critical thinking skills and decision-making abilities. This would help them to make informed choices about their lives, including their choice of partner and their choice of whether or not to have children. Raising the minimum age of marriage would also help to protect women from exploitation. Child brides are often more vulnerable to domestic violence, sexual abuse, and forced labor. By raising the age of marriage, we can help to ensure that women have the opportunity to grow and develop into healthy, independent adults before they enter into marriage.

Of course, there are some challenges that would need to be addressed if the minimum age of marriage were to be raised. For example, we would need to ensure that there are adequate educational and employment opportunities for women. We would also need to address the cultural norms that support child marriage. However, these challenges are not insurmountable. With the right policies and programs in place, we can create a society where women have the opportunity to reach their full potential, regardless of their age.

Historical Background:

The issue of a uniform marriage age for men and women in India can be traced back to the early 20th century. In 1929, the Indian National Congress passed a resolution calling for the minimum age of marriage for women to be raised to 18. This resolution was based on the belief that child marriage was harmful to women’s health and well-being.

In 1930, the Sarda Act was passed, which set the minimum age of marriage for women at 14 and for men at 18. However, this Act was not widely enforced, and child marriage continued to be a widespread problem in India.

In 1978, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act was passed, which raised the minimum age of marriage for women to 18 and for men to 21. This Act was more effectively enforced than the Sarda Act, and it has helped to reduce the incidence of child marriage in India.

However, the issue of a uniform marriage age for men and women is still a contentious one in India. Some people argue that the minimum age of marriage should be raised to 21 for both men and women, while others argue that it should be left to individuals to decide when they want to marry.

The debate over the uniform marriage age is likely to continue for some time. However, the arguments in favor of raising the age of marriage for women are compelling. By giving women more time to develop their education and careers, and by reducing the risk of maternal mortality, a uniform marriage age of 21 would be a positive step for gender equality in India.

Here are some of the factors that contributed to the start of the issue:

  • The patriarchal nature of Indian society, which has traditionally viewed women as inferior to men.
  • The lack of education and employment opportunities for women, which made them more dependent on their husbands and families.
  • The cultural norms that support child marriage, which are often seen as a way to protect women’s chastity and ensure their future security.

The historical background of the uniform marriage age of men and women in India:

  • 1929: The Child Marriage Restraint Act is passed, setting the minimum age of marriage for girls at 14 and for boys at 18.
  • 1978: The Child Marriage Restraint Act is amended, raising the minimum age of marriage for girls to 18 and for boys to 21.
  • 2006: The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is passed, strengthening the penalties for child marriage.
  • 2021: The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill is introduced in Parliament, proposing to raise the minimum age of marriage for women to 21.

The recent case laws on the issue of uniform marriage age for men and women in India.

 Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Facts: The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to raise the minimum age of marriage for women from 18 to 21. He argued that the current minimum age is discriminatory and violates the fundamental rights of women. He also argued that raising the age of marriage would help to reduce the risk of maternal mortality and morbidity, and would give women more time to develop their education and careers.

Issues: The main issues in this case were whether the current minimum age of marriage for women is discriminatory, and whether raising the age of marriage would be beneficial to women’s health and well-being.

Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the issue of uniform marriage age is a matter for Parliament to decide, not the Court. The Court stated that it would be inappropriate for the Court to intervene in this matter, as it would be usurping the powers of Parliament.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was met with mixed reactions. Some people welcomed the Court’s decision to defer to Parliament, while others criticized the Court for not taking a more progressive stance on the issue. It remains to be seen whether the Court will revisit this issue in the future.

Shahida Quraishi v. Union of India

Facts: The petitioner, Shahida Quraishi, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to enhance the legal age of marriage for women to 21 at par with men. She argued that the current minimum age of marriage for women is discriminatory and violates the fundamental rights of women. She also argued that raising the age of marriage would help to reduce the risk of maternal mortality and morbidity, and would give women more time to develop their education and careers.

Issues: The main issues in this case were the same as those in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case.

Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would amount to directing Parliament to make a law to fix the age. The Court stated that it is not the function of the Court to legislate, and that the issue of uniform marriage age is a matter for Parliament to decide.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was also met with mixed reactions. Some people welcomed the Court’s decision to defer to Parliament, while others criticized the Court for not taking a more progressive stance on the issue. It remains to be seen whether the Court will revisit this issue in the future.

In both of these cases, the Supreme Court has deferred to Parliament on the issue of uniform marriage age. This is likely due to the fact that the issue is a complex one, with no easy answers. It is also likely due to the fact that the Court is reluctant to intervene in a matter that is traditionally seen as the domain of Parliament.

However, the debate over uniform marriage age is likely to continue. It is possible that Parliament will eventually decide to raise the minimum age of marriage for women, in line with the age for men. If this happens, it would be a significant step forward for gender equality in India.

Recent Development:

The issue of uniform marriage age for men and women in India has been a long-standing one. In 2019, the Law Commission of India recommended that the minimum age of marriage for women be raised to 21 years, in line with the minimum age of marriage for men. This recommendation was based on the following grounds:

  • The current minimum age of marriage for women is not in line with the global trend, which is to set a uniform minimum age of 18 or 21 for both men and women.
  • Raising the minimum age of marriage for women would give them more time to complete their education and develop their skills, which would ultimately benefit them and their families.
  • Raising the minimum age of marriage for women would help to reduce the incidence of child marriage, which is a major social problem in India.

In 2020, the Union Cabinet approved the Law Commission’s recommendation to raise the minimum age of marriage for women to 21 years. However, the bill to amend the relevant laws has not yet been passed by Parliament.

In recent months, there have been renewed calls for the government to pass the bill to amend the relevant laws. These calls have been made by women’s rights groups, child rights groups, and even some members of Parliament.

It is unclear when the bill will be passed by Parliament. However, the recent developments suggest that the government is now more committed to raising the minimum age of marriage for women than ever before.

Here are some of the recent developments:

  • In March 2023, the Ministry of Women and Child Development issued a notification stating that the government is committed to raising the minimum age of marriage for women to 21 years.
  • In April 2023, the National Commission for Women (NCW) wrote to the Prime Minister, urging him to pass the bill to amend the relevant laws.
  • In May 2023, a group of MPs from the Rajya Sabha submitted a petition to the President of India, urging him to intervene and ensure that the bill is passed by Parliament.

It is hoped that the government will take these recent developments into account and pass the bill to amend the relevant laws as soon as possible. This would be a major step forward in the fight against child marriage and gender inequality in India.

Situational Analysis:

Pros of Increasing Marriageable Age for Girls and Making it Uniform:

  • Socio-economic Fronts: Increasing the legal age for the marriage of women has enormous benefits on social and economic fronts including:
  • Lowering the Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR).
  • Improvement of nutrition levels.
  • On the financial front, opportunities will be opened up for women to pursue higher education and careers and become financially empowered, thus resulting in a more egalitarian society.
  • More female labour force participation: Increasing the marriage age will push the mean marriage age higher and will lead to more females doing graduation and hence improving the female labour force participation ratio.
  • The percentage of females doing graduation will increase by at least 5-7 percentage points from the current level of 9.8%.
  • The benefit for both: Both men and women will gain economically and socially by marrying when they are more than the legal age, but added that the urge of the women is much higher as they always get a higher payoff by becoming financially empowered to take decisions.

Cons of Increasing Marriageable Age for Girls and Making it Uniform:

  • Minimum is not mandatory: Minimum age of marriage does not mean mandatory age.It only signifies that below that age there could be criminal prosecution under the child marriage law.
  • Rights of the girls are threatened: Increasing the age of marriage to 21 years would mean that girls will have no say in their personal matters until they are 21.
    The elementary right that the Convention of the Right of Children of theUnited Nation bestows upon minors — the right to be heard, the right for their views to be considered — will be denied to girls right up till 21, beyond adulthood.
  • Exploitation of law by parents: The child marriage law has been used by parents against eloping daughters. It has become a tool for parental control and for punishment of boys or men whom girls choose as their husbands.
    Most cases that are taken to court are self-arranged marriages.And only one-third of the cases relate to arranged marriages, which are sometimes brought by parents or husbands to dissolve or to nullify marriages that have broken down because of domestic violence, dowry or compatibility issues.
  • Social validity of marriages: Even if the law declares a marriage before the specified age as void, in the eyes of the community, arranged marriages will have social validity.This worsens the condition of the girls who are widowed even before reaching the new legal age for marriage. Increased female infanticide: Moreover, raising the female marriage age in the countries that have high son preference and high poverty may have the unintended consequence of increasing the prevalence of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion.

Way forward:

Altering the thinking:
Any ground-level change will only happen when the psyche of people will alter. No law is effective if change does not occur from within.

Erasing the stereotype:
Increasing the legal age for marriage is a must, even legally as it should get us out of the stereotype mindset that women are more mature than men of the same age and therefore can be allowed to marry sooner.

Conclusion:

It is a societal fact that women are expected to start families right away and are also compelled to perform household duties in accordance with their stereotyped family roles. This hurts their academic and professional goals, and it frequently interferes with their right to reproductive autonomy. According to a ruling by the Supreme Court, the legislature and the government must decide on a uniform marriage age for men and women, no matter how desirable it may be.

The recent developments suggest that the government is now more committed to raising the minimum age of marriage for women than ever before. However, it is still unclear when the bill will be passed by Parliament. If the bill is passed, it would be a major step forward in the fight against child marriage and gender inequality in India. It would also send a strong message that the government is committed to the rights of women and girls.

The benefits of having a uniform marriage age for men and women:

  • It would help to reduce the incidence of child marriage, which is a major social problem in India.
  • It would give women more time to complete their education and develop their skills, which would ultimately benefit them and their families.
  • It would help to promote gender equality, as it would remove the legal basis for discrimination against women on the basis of their age.

References:

https://www.legalbites.in/topics/articles/uniform-marriage-age-of-men-and-women-898062

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4773-sc-to-settle-uniform-age-of-marriage-for-men-and-women.html

https://www.scobserver.in/cases/ashwini-kumar-upadhyay-union-of-india-uniform-marriage-age-case-background/

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-rejects-plea-seeking-uniform-marriage-age-for-both-men-and-women/article66531917.ece

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/sc-junks-plea-seeking-uniform-minimum-age-for-marriage-for-men-and-women/articleshow/98090057.cms

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/supreme-court-declines-request-seeking-uniform-marriage-age-for-men-women-3799765

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Article Written By: JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

0

NEED FOR A NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDING, NEW DELHI

Articles , , , , ,

INTRODUCTION

The New Parliament House in New Delhi is the seat of the Parliament of India. It houses the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. New parliament building is constructed in New Delhi. It is inaugurated on 28 May 2023 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

At a distance of 750 meters from the Rashtrapati Bhavan, it is located on Sansad Marg. This article explores about the new Parliament building.

BACKGROUND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW BUILDING

Early in the 2010s, ideas for a new parliament building to replace the current complex surfaced due to concerns about its stability. Speaker Meira Kumar, who was in office at the time, had formed a committee to develop a number of alternatives to the current structure. The current structure, which is 93 years old, is thought to have structural problems as well as not having enough room to house members and their employees. Despite this, preparations are in place to safeguard the building because it is significant to India’s national heritage.

IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDING

  • New parliament building is a triangular- shaped four-storey building.
  • The built-up area of the new parliament building is 65,000 square metres.
  • The time required to complete the construction is 2.5 years.
  • The estimated cost to construct the new parliament building is Rs 970 crores.
  • New parliament building has 3 times more space than the old parliament building.
  • New parliament building has the modern technology.
  • Sengol, which is a historic symbol of authority, was installed near the chair of Lok sabha speaker.
  • The central hall of the new parliament building has the capacity to accommodate 1,272 MPs for the joint session. It is more than 500 MPs in the old building.
  • The hall of Lok sabha is constructed on Peacock theme which is our national bird. It has designs drawn from national’s bird feathers which were craved on the wall and the ceiling. They are complemented by the teal carpets.
  • The hall of the Lok sabha will have 888 seats which are up from the existing capacity of 543 seats.
  • It has the option to expanding seats upto 1,272 seats.
  • The hall of Rajya sabha is constructed on Lotus theme which is our national flower. Along with it, it has red carpets.
  • The hall of the Rajya sabha will have 384 seats as opposed to the existing capacity of 250 members.
  • The new complex is constructed by the TATA PROJECTS LTD.
  • The new parliament building will be having three main gates naming, Shakti Dwar, Gyan Dwar and Karma Dwar.
  • The new grand constitutional hall will showcase the India’s democratic heritage.
  • The new parliament building will have the superior library, dining areas and the multiple committee rooms.
  • There will be modern office spaces and lounge for the members of the parliament.
  • The old parliament building will be converted into a museum.
  • There were 19 opposition parties including the congress who boycotted the event.
  • The new parliament building is constructed using green construction techniques.
  • Thye new parliament building is supposed to reduce the electricity consumption by 30%.
  • New building of the parliament will have rainwater harvesting systems and water recycling systems.
  • Delhi is a seismic zone-V, the new parliament building is primed to be earthquake-safe. The existing parliament house was at risk from the earthquakes.
  • The new parliament building is replete with the national emblem that weighs 9,500kg and is 6.5 metres in height.
  • At the entrance of the new parliament building, the word ‘Satyameva Jayate’ and Ashoka Chakra has been engraved on the stone.
  • The 16 foot-tall bronze statue of Mahatama Gandhi which has been site of gatherings by MPs and photo ops for students, will remain on the lawn between old and new buildings.

HISTORY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OLD PARLIAMENT BUILDING

  • The search to find a suitable building to House the Central Assembly after Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1918 led British British Administrators to use the Secretariat building as the venue for the first legislative assembly.
  • Metcalf House was where Council of state held its meetings.
  • There were 2 legislative buildings that were constructed to house central legislative assembly. Parliament building in Delhi and a smaller one in Shimla.
  • The Himachal Pradesh building was inaugurated in 1925, is now home to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
  • Vithalbhai Patel became first Indian to be elected as President of Central Assembly in the Shimla.
  • The Parliament estate has 5 buildings:
  • Circular Parliament (1927)
  • The Annexe (1975)
  • The Library (2002)
  • The extension to the Annexe (2017)
  • The New Parliament House (2023)
  • During 1970s, when the designing the stage of Annexe building, there was a plan to build the subway underneath Talkatora Road and to connect it to Parliament House.
  • After the Parliament attack, the section of Talkatora road that has separated the 2 buildings was included within Parliament grounds.
  • PM Indira Gandhi approved the proposal. Planners also investigated the feasibility of having a monorail within the subway but the plan never materialised.
  • There was demand for the Parliament session in South India.
  • Multiple times MPs have raised the issue of holding a session of Parliament in southern part of the country.
  • On one occasion, the 400 MPs gave the representation to the government for holding an annual session in Bengaluru.
  • A committee of MPs examined the issue and thought that recruiting financial expenditure and administrative difficulties involved made the proposition unviable.

 

SUPREME COURT DISMISSES PLEA SEEKING INAUGURATION OF NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDING BY PRESIDENT MURMU

The Supreme Court rejected a request for guidance from the Lok Sabha secretariat about President Murmu’s inauguration of the new Parliament building. The petitioner claimed that by not inviting the president to the inaugural ceremony, the Union of India was ‘humiliating’ her.

“We know why you file such petitions, we are not inclined to entertain this,” the Supreme Court bench observed.

“Be grateful that we are not imposing costs on you,” the bench said further.

“It is not a function of the court to look into,” a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and P S Narasimha said, turning down the plea.

The PIL’s author, attorney C R Jaya Sukin, told the bench that no law gives the executive leader the authority to inaugurate the Parliament. The bench asked him to explain how the President’s role in addressing the joint session of Parliament relates to the inauguration as he was citing it.

“You please show us how the address is correlated to inauguration,” Justice Maheswari told the counsel and added, “Nothing to do. It is not a function of the court to look into”.

The counsel said the action to have it inaugurated by the Prime Minister is in “total violation of Article 79” which says that there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.

“President is the head of the Parliament and should open the building because the head of the executive does not have any jurisdiction over Parliament. Executive head is only a member of Parliament,” he submitted.

ARTICLE 79 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Constitution of Parliament There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the council of States and the House of the People.

REASONS FOR THE NEW BUILDING

The need of the new building has arrived because of the lack of space, lack of technology, infrastructural issues and the seating capacity.

  1. Lack of Space: The existing Delhi Parliament House, constructed during the British era, lacks enough room to house the growing number of Members of Parliament (MPs) and support personnel. Through the provision of a larger and more up-to-date facility, the planned new parliament building sought to alleviate this problem.
  2. Infrastructure and modernization: The new parliament building was designed to be a cutting-edge institution with cutting-edge amenities. It was anticipated to include cutting-edge technology, greater MP facilities, and more accessibility for individuals with disabilities.
  3. Increased Seating Capacity: In comparison to the old Parliament House, there was a huge need that the new structure was anticipated to have a larger seating capacity. As opposed to the current capacity of 543 MPs, the suggested design sought to accommodate 888 MPs.
  4. Triangular Design: A triangle shape was suggested for the new parliament building, signifying the convergence of the legislative, executive, and judicial parts of the Indian government.
  5. Preservation of the Heritage: The new parliament building was meant to honour India’s rich architectural past while simultaneously providing a modern facility. It is likely that efforts were made to ensure that the new building’s design blended well with the neighbourhood’s architectural style.

CONCLUSION

Parliamentary processes can be streamlined with the help of modern technology, increasing their efficiency, and lowering their administrative responsibilities. Automating procedures like document management, scheduling, and voting with digital tools can save time and boost overall productivity. Through the creation of forums for public input, feedback, and consultation on legislative issues, advanced technology can encourage greater public engagement. Citizens can voice their opinions through online petitions, questionnaires, and interactive platforms, which enhances the representation of many viewpoints.

The New Parliament building to cost around ₹970 crore. As per me it is worth it and is not a wrong investment as the current Parliament House Building was constructed between 1921 and 1927; it is 93 years old and has been designated a grade-I heritage building. Its amenities and facilities fall well short of what the Parliament now requires. There is a severe lack of office space, and members of parliament do not have their own chambers. Due to extensive remodelling over the years and the fact that this structure was not intended for bicameral Parliament, it is now overstressed.

REFERENCES

https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-plea-seeking-inauguration-of-new-parliament-building-by-president-murmu-2384663-2023-05-26

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sc-pil-new-parliament-inauguration-pm-modi-president-murmu-8630112/

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/live-updates-pm-modi-to-inaugurate-new-parliament-building-today-new-parliament-sengol-new-parliament-inauguration-live-updates-4071846

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Parliament_House,_New_Delhi

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-parliament-building-to-cost-around-rs-970-crore-centre-in-lok-sabha/story-y7HMlc8M72ApY45XxuHlYN.html

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1119830/

Article by HARSHIT JAIN

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”