'Why not impose a fine on you', Supreme Court dismisses petition seeking inauguration of new Parliament from President

national desk:
The Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking the inauguration of the new Parliament House by the President.  The court has said it is not its job to make such an order.  During the hearing, the judges also held that no right of the petitioner is being affected right in this case.
 Tamil Nadu-based lawyer CR Jayasukin had opposed the Prime Minister's inauguration of the new Parliament House.  Describing the invitation issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat as unconstitutional, he had argued that the President is the constitutional head of the country.  Therefore, she should inaugurate the new Parliament House.
The matter came up before a vacation bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha.  The judges asked at the outset why such a plea should not be dismissed with damages imposed.  The counsel sought permission to speak.  The judges asked him to speak up.

 The petitioner said that the President is the constitutional head of the country.  The constitution of Parliament as stipulated in Article 79 of the Constitution consists of three parts - the President, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.  Thus the President is a part of Parliament while the Prime Minister is just a member of Parliament.  To this, Justice Narasimha said, "Article 79 merely construes a system. Nowhere does it mandate that any inauguration must also be conducted by the President."