The Congress on Monday accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of using the office of the President for electoral symbolism while reducing it to "tokenism" by undermining successive Presidents' constitutional prestige.

It alleged that Modi had insulted the previous President and the incumbent, keeping Ram Nath Kovind out of the foundation-laying ceremony for the new Parliament building in 2020 and excluding Droupadi Murmu from its upcoming inauguration.

The Congress, which believes that Kovind and Murmu should have laid the foundation and inaugurated the building, respectively, accused Modi of picking them for the presidency solely on electoral considerations, Kovind being a Dalit and Murmu a tribal.

Modi had himself laid the foundation for the new Parliament on December 10, 2020, and is set to inaugurate the building on May 28.

"It looks like the Modi Govt has ensured election of President of India from the Dalit and the Tribal communities only for electoral reasons," Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said in a series of tweets.

"While Former President, Shri Kovind was not invited for the New Parliament foundation laying ceremony… the President of India Smt. Droupadi Murmu is not being invited for the inauguration of the new Parliament Building."

Kharge added: "The Parliament of India is the supreme legislative body of the Republic of India, and the President of India is its highest Constitutional authority.

"She (Murmu) alone represents government, opposition, and every citizen alike. She is the First Citizen of India. Inauguration of the new Parliament building by her will symbolise Government’s commitment to Democratic values and Constitutional propriety.

"The Modi Govt has repeatedly disrespected propriety. The Office of the President of India is reduced to tokenism under the BJP-RSS Government."

While many Opposition parties had boycotted the 2020 event, Kovind was not even invited because his presence would have made it difficult for Modi to lay the foundation without violating protocol. The plaque for the new Parliament building doesn’t mention Kovind’s name.

Many Opposition parties are contemplating a boycott of the May 28 inauguration, too, because of Murmu’s exclusion.

Rahul Gandhi had on Sunday said the President should inaugurate the new Parliament.

The supremacy of the President is cast in stone in the Constitution. Article 79 says: "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 (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha)."

Although the Prime Minister wields executive power, he is only the head of the government, not the head of the State. There is no dispute or confusion about the President enjoying a higher status in protocol than the Prime Minister.

"Those who understand the Constitution and the Republic of India know that what is happening is against constitutional propriety," Congress spokesperson Anand Sharma said at a news conference on Monday.

"Parliament doesn't belong to the government; it belongs to the nation. Sovereignty rests in the people of India and the President alone represents it."

Sharma said: "The President alone has the right to call a Parliament session. Every member (of either House) gets a personal summons from the President. Similarly, the President alone has the right to prorogue; the presiding officers can only adjourn the Houses.

"When the President addresses the joint session of Parliament, he or she is flanked by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman. The Prime Minister is not even seated with the President."

Asked whether the BJP had excluded Kovind and Murmu from events related to the new Parliament building because they were from Dalit and tribal communities, Sharma said: "We are not saying that, but it is unfortunate and sad. The Prime Minister should have personally seen to it that the President was not insulted."

To a question about boycotting the function, Sharma said a decision would be taken in consultation with like-minded parties.

The clearly defined hierarchy between the President and the Prime Minister is not just a matter of ceremonial significance but has a bearing on the constitutional spirit and political culture, political observers said.

They said that since the President is above partisan considerations, he or she alone must preside over events of national importance.

Multiple political observers suggested in off-the-record conversations that Modi had demonstrated that he didn't believe in the constitutional supremacy of the President and was hell-bent on seeing his name on the plaque at the new Parliament building.

When the Central Vista -- which the new Parliament building is a part of --- was announced during the peak of Covid, Congress leader and current communications chief Jairam Ramesh had said it was about Modi’s ego.

"It is only about one man's ego. It is Narendra Modi’s idea; none else. Only Modi. Every dictator wants to leave behind an architectural legacy. History tells us that every authoritarian leader was obsessed with creating new buildings," Ramesh had told The Telegraph.

Randeep Surjewala, the then party communications chief, had tweeted: "The Rs 13,450 crore Central Vista Project is not a legalistic issue but a case of misplaced priorities of a whimsical autocrat seeking to etch his name in the annals of history with cement & mortar."

The Congress now sees the inauguration ceremony in the same context, arguing the Prime Minister had made sure that the President was not invited to the event.

Sharma questioned the justification for the building, asserting that many richer countries had refrained from building a new Parliament despite their national assembly buildings being much older than India's.

"While the 11th-century Westminster in Britain was reconstructed around 539 years ago after it was gutted in a fire, the American Parliament, Capitol Hill, is 531 years old and the French Palais Bourbon is standing since 1728. Our Parliament is barely 96 years old," he said.

Sharma dismissed the RSS-BJP claim that the old Parliament building symbolised colonial rule, saying that it had historical significance because the Constituent Assembly sat there and the Constitution was adopted in the same building.

"The British made it but it is ours. Our workers made it with our material and money; the red sandstone didn’t come from abroad," he said.