Category: Quotes

At a time when the Supreme Court has expedited hearing on the writ petitions against the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Speaker Agni Sapkota is busy holding one meeting after another to discuss the May 21 dissolution and the political situation it has brought about.

He has called an all-party meeting for Friday with the chairs and senior leaders of the parties represented in the dissolved lower house. Along with the former prime ministers, his invitees include Prime Minister and CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli, also a primary defendant in the House dissolution case.

Sapkota himself is one of the defendants.

Some constitutional experts say Sapkota calling meetings is setting a bad precedent against constitutionalism and rule of law. They say the meetings are wrong for two reasons. First, holding discussions on a sub-judice case is against the democratic practice and second, the Speaker’s position is a neutral post, so Sapkota shouldn’t be seen taking sides.

Bipin Adhikari, a former dean at Kathmandu University School of Law, said Sapkota is trying to practice a shadow parliament by calling all party meetings, which is undemocratic.

“He is also challenging another state organ (judiciary) by holding discussion on a sub-judice case,” he told the Post. “Sapkota is equally responsible for present anomalies in the democratic system of the country.”

Among the three state organs Sapkota leads one—legislature.

He has already held meetings with former Speakers and constitutional and legal experts. In both the meetings, a majority of the participants said that the dissolution was unconstitutional while some of the constitutional experts even argued that Sapkota holds a privilege to call the session of the House.

According to Shreedhar Neupane, a press advisor to Sapkota, the Friday’s meeting has been called to discuss contemporary issues. Though he didn’t dwell on the details about the meeting, the officials at the Parliament Secretariat say as Sapkota has already made his position clear that the dissolution is unconstitutional, he is lobbying to establish what he believes.

“It is natural for one to lobby for the position he has taken,” a senior official at the Parliament Secretariat told the Post on condition of anonymity. “Friday’s meeting is its continuation. He will be holding more of such meetings in the days to come.”

Oli’s aides have publicly said he wouldn’t be participating in the meeting. People from Sapkota’s secretariat say they expect participation of all political parties except from the Oli-led faction of the UML.

According to Adhikari, Sapkota has indulged in unwarranted activism mainly after the first dissolution of the lower house on December 20 last year. He had issued a statement claiming the dissolution was unconstitutional which he repeated this time as well.

Sapkota’s move in January to return the Constitutional Council’s recommendations to various constitutional bodies back to the council had run into controversy.

On January 31, he had returned the recommendations forwarded by the council, saying that there was no possibility of holding the hearing of the appointees as the House of Representatives did not exist. He, however, had not consulted with the chair of the National Assembly, though the Parliamentary Hearing Committee is composed of the members from both houses.

The regulation of the parliament makes it mandatory for both the houses to have a consultation on the issues related to the jurisdiction of both the houses. Similarly, in an unprecedented move, Sapkota on February 5 filed a writ petition against the Office of the President and chief of executive–Oli–and head of judiciary Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana over the appointments in the constitutional bodies.

As many as 32 chairs and the members of 11 different constitutional commissions on February 3 had taken an oath of office and secrecy in an event organised at the President’s Office.

The recommendations had been made on December 15 after the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties and Procedure) Act-2010 had been amended through an ordinance that allowed for the meeting of the Constitutional Council to be held with the majority of the existing members of the Council. The recommendation to appoint the 38 members of constitutional bodies had been made without the presence of the Speaker and the leader of the main opposition in Parliament since they had opposed the amendment.

Sapkota’s move to challenge the head of two other state agencies and the head of the state too became the issue of criticism.

“Sapkota’s activism is not natural,” Raju Prasad Chapagain, chair of the Constitutional Lawyer’s Forum, told the Post. “His activities are taking a toll on the integrity of the institution he is leading.”

He says Sapkota’s moves are more like a leader of a particular party rather than a one who holds a neutral position leading one of the three state organs.

The Speaker has to resign from the membership of his/her party the day they are elected to the position. Sapkota was elected the Speaker as a candidate from the erstwhile Nepal Communist Party (NCP) in January 2020. He has been close to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal for a long time.

Experts say Sapkota’s activities seem to be influenced by the position his former party takes.

Adhikari says it is his constitutional obligation to play an impartial role which should be reflected in his actions. “It seems under some provocation Sapkota is trying to give a symbolic message while the writ petitions are sub judice,” he said. “He should refrain from any of such activism and wait for the law to take its course.”

The Supreme Court on Wednesday announced to start continuous hearing on the petitions from June 23 after receiving written clarification from the defendants. It has given seven days to the Office of President, the Prime Minister’s Office, Oli and federal parliament to furnish clarification. The Rana-led Constitutional Bench has decided to conclude the hearing within 32 hours.

“Sapkota is competing with Oli in breaching the rule of law,” said Chapagain. “He must understand in the name of attacking Oli’s move, he is committing one mistake after another.”

A week after the dissolution of the House of Representatives, a Constitutional Bench was constituted on May 28 to start hearing on the writ petitions against the dissolution.

But two weeks since its constitution, the bench hasn’t formally started hearing the petitions. The discussions in the bench are hovering over its composition.

When the bench was constituted, the plaintiff’s lawyers questioned the impartiality of Justices Tej Bahadur KC and Bam Kumar Shrestha in the five-member bench, led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. They argued that Shrestha was one of the justices on the bench that on March 7 passed a verdict which invalidated the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and revived the CPN-UML and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), while KC was on the Rana-led bench that refused to review the decision of NCP invalidation.

The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that the current dissolution of the House was a result of the court’s move to invalidate the NCP. Justices Deepak Kumar Karki and Ananda Mohan Bhattarai were other members of the constitutional bench formed to conduct hearings on the 30 writ petitions challenging the May 22 House dissolution.

The bench was reconstituted on Sunday replacing KC and Shrestha with Justices Mira Khadka and Ishwar Khatiwada.

But now it was the turn of the defendant’s lawyers to question the composition. Attorney General Ramesh Badal and former Attorney General Agni Kharel, among others, defending Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s House dissolution move, said they were not convinced of the impartiality of Justices Karki and Bhattarai, who had said they wouldn’t be the part of the bench if KC and Shrestha didn’t recuse themselves.

Badal and Kharel on Sunday said the court should treat the plaintiffs and defendants equally and revisit the composition.

The proceeding scheduled for Monday was deferred as Chief Justice Rana was taken ill.

The hearing is expected to start on Wednesday; however, it would depend how defendant lawyers take their positions.

“It is unfortunate that the parties to the dispute are being allowed to choose the justices,” Bipin Adhikari, a former dean at Kathmandu University School of Law, told the Post. “This is a result of mediocrity in the court’s leadership.

He says raising unnecessary suspicion on the Supreme Court and allowing the parties to the dispute to choose justices is yet another step towards polluting the judicial system.

Experts say by heeding the demands of the plaintiff’s lawyers, Rana had set a negative precedent whose consequences were seen immediately.

They say in the judicial system the discretion to whether to remain on the bench or rescue from it should be given to the respective justices. However, despite KC and Shrestha willing to remain on the bench, they were removed.

Balaram KC, a former justice at the Supreme Court, said many cases in the courts are connected, the justice process would be further delayed if justices are asked to leave the bench even in the cases that are not directly interlinked.

“The crucial time of the court is being wasted on unnecessary things,” KC told the Post. “This is a result of the lack of assertiveness in the chief justice.”

He said Chief Justice Rana should have exercised prudence while constituting the bench or at least shown resolve to defend his decision, but he failed on both counts.

Experts on the judicial and constitutional affairs say it is not that the plaintiffs and defendants cannot question the presence of any justices on a bench.

In the current case, both the sides are pressuring the judiciary, rather than just making requests, to recompose the bench.

Adhikari, the former dean at the Kathmandu University School of Law, said the way Badal presented himself in the court shows he was a personal lawyer to Oli as an individual not a prime minister.

He said Badal, the chief of a state’s constitutional body, seeking removal of a justice isn’t a common incident in a functioning democracy.

“Badal is a representative of the state. His job is to defend the government based on the constitutional provisions,” said Adhikari. “He has demeaned his position by demanding the justices of his choice.”

Some judicial experts say the current controversy over the integrity and impartiality of the justices is a worrying sign of declining public trust in the judiciary.

They say the situation arose because the Judicial Council failed to perform its job right from the selection to the scrutiny.

The council has the authority to pick justices for the Supreme Court and judges for the lower courts.

“When factors other than competency and integrity count in the appointment process, the impartiality of the court will always come into question,” Prakash Wasti, a former justice at the Supreme Court, told the Post. “The council also has failed to scrutinise the justices.”

The council headed by the chief justice, has law minister, a seniormost justice from the apex court, and one each recommended by the government and the Nepal Bar Association as members

Wasti said the failure of the council in performing its constitutional duties—selecting judges in a fair manner and rewarding and taking action as per their performance—is largely responsible for the present mess in the judiciary.

As the chief of the judiciary, it is the responsibility of Rana to introspect what is going wrong, say judicial experts.

“He should be evaluating his leadership and the performance of his fellow colleagues,” said Adhikari. “It is definitely not a good sign for the judiciary and the state as a whole that questions are being raised over the competency and integrity of the justices and the court.”

Thirteen years ago on this day Nepal was reborn.

When Nepalis woke up on May 29, 2008, Nepal had become a republic. Late on May 28 night, the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly had voted to declare Nepal a fully federal democratic republic, ending the 240-year-old monarchy.

The constitution that was adopted on September 20, 2015 then formally institutionalised the declaration. The monarchy was consigned to history. The constitution envisioned a president as the head of state.

It was a massive political transformation the country had seen after the decades-long bloody war that killed 13,000 people and left thousands injured and disappeared.

Celebrations erupted across the country, and one thing that made Nepalis excited about was—the days of hereditary rulers, the monarchs, were gone… people’s sons and daughters would take the highest position in the country.

A little over a decade, Nepal still is a fledgling republic. The current President, Bidya Devi Bhandari, is the second, after she succeeded Ram Baran Yadav who had a seven-year tenure.

The constitution envisions the President as the protector of the constitution.

As the country marks the 14th Republic Day, questions, however, are being asked if President Bhandari has indeed played the role of the custodian and protector of the constitution in a true sense.

“The President instead has emerged as the biggest threat to the constitution that institutionalised republicanism, along with federalism and secularism,” said Dinesh Tripathi, a senior advocate who specialises in constitutional law. “This is very unfortunate.”

The Constituent Assembly that declared Nepal a federal republic was elected in April 2008 with the mandate to draw up a new constitution within four years. But continued wrangling among political parties led to its dissolution in 2012.

The Second Constituent Assembly was elected in 2013. Elections were overseen by a non-political prime minister, Khil Raj Regmi, who was the sitting chief justice then. As parties continued in their game of brinkmanship, chances of the second assembly delivering a constitution were diminishing.

But the April-May 2015 earthquakes somehow became the cause for politicians to make a push for the constitution. KP Sharma Oli, the chair of the CPN-UML, which was the second largest force in the assembly, was at the forefront of bringing together parties to rush the constitution amid protests in the plains and Madhes-based parties’ opposition.

A month after the constitution was promulgated, Oli became prime minister on October 12, 2015. On October 29, Bhandari was elected President.

Oli stepped down as prime minister in July 2016, but returned to power in February 2018. He had a strong mandate to govern for a full term. The drafters of the constitution claimed that they had given the country the “best constitution in the world”. They claimed they had drawn up every article so carefully that Nepal was out of the vicious cycle of political instability.

The expectations, however, were short-lived.

Oli demonstrated his authoritarian impulses right from the start. Bhandari would not bat an eye. The biggest assault the duo made on the constitution was on December 20, 2020 when Oli, despite leading a majority government, dissolved the House, and Bhandari obliged. Experts on constitutional matters vociferously criticised the President for rubber-stamping Oli’s every decision—even unconstitutional—refusing to invoke her conscience even once.

However, those who defended the President’s approval of Oli’s House dissolution as her duty as the constitutional head of state, said she had no option but to abide by the decisions made by the executive.

The Office of the President, however, had become an object of censure in the past too. Bhandari’s unwarranted interests in petty party politics, especially when Oli fell in trouble within his party, had raised quite an eyebrow. The media, civil society and analysts had warned about the hallowed institute, the symbol of republicanism, earning disrepute because of the person who helmed it.

Oli’s December 20 decision to dissolve the House was overturned by the Supreme Court on February 23. But Oli once again, on May 21, dissolved the House.

Bhandari worked extra hours, until late in the night. The Office of the President released a statement at 1:49am on May 22, announcing the House dissolution and declaring snap polls on November 12 and November 19.

Daman Nath Dhungana, a former House Speaker who was at the forefront of the 2006 people’s movement, which ultimately led to the election of the Constituent Assembly in 2008 and declaration of Nepal as a republic, said republicanism and constitutionalism at present are under threat from those who are supposed to protect those hard-earned gains.

“The constitution is facing danger from the present government and the President,” Dhungana told the Post. “The first step to save it is restoring the House and electing a government which has the trust of the restored House.”

The recent House dissolution too has been challenged in the Supreme Court. As many as 30 petitions have been registered demanding a restoration of the House. The Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana started hearing the petitions on Friday.

The Office of the President has been named as one of the defendants.

Analysts say when the Office of the President is constantly dragged into court, accusing it of making unconstitutional moves, it constitutes signs that something is seriously wrong.

According to experts, Bhandari’s endorsement of the December 20 House dissolution could be justified as her constitutionally mandated duty in the capacity of the head of state, but this time around, she has gone beyond her brief. A couple of steps she made before the House dissolution were also unconstitutional, experts say.

Before Oli recommended House dissolution, he had laid claim to a new government even though a day before he had proclaimed he did not have the numbers to win a vote of confidence in the House. Nepali Congress’ Sher Bahadur Deuba too had made a claim for the prime ministerial post, saying he had the backing of 149 lawmakers.

The claims were made as per the President’s call to form a government under Article 76 (5). She refused to recognise both the claims made by Oli and Deuba.

After failing to get reappointed as prime minister, Oli, who had been appointed a week ago on May 13 despite losing a confidence vote in the House, dissolved the Parliament.

Reappointment of Oli as prime minister on May 13 under Article 76 (3) itself was unconstitutional, experts say, as the constitution does not envision the same person as prime minister under different articles. Earlier in February 2018 and May 2018, Article 76 (2) and Article 76 (1) had already been used up to appoint Oli prime minister.

Experts say Bhandari failed to follow the letter and spirit of the constitution which elected her to the top post, and acted like an aide to Oli rather than the head of state.

As the country marks the 13th Republic Day, it must be observed with a renewed solemnpledge to safeguard the top law of the country, analysts say. Post File Photo
When the constitution was promulgated, one major question it faced was whether it had wider acceptability. Calls for constitutional amendments have not died down yet. However, elections in 2017 installed three tiers of the government. A strong government in Kathmandu and seven governments in provinces, with local federal units getting people’s representatives after almost two decades, inspired hopes.

There were expectations that Oli as prime minister would help implement the constitution and Bhandari as the President would safeguard it from any harm.

Instead, Bhandari, analysts say, worked hand-in-glove with Oli to weaken the constitution, making it more vulnerable.

“The frequent attacks on the constitution and political system by Oli have definitely impaired the constitution,” said Vijay Kant Karna, a professor of political science at the Tribhuvan University. “Oli was never checked for his unconstitutional moves. The President always stood by him and seconded him. A weakened constitution is exposed to more threats now.”

According to him, Oli should have stepped down long ago, the day when the court overturned his December House dissolution, on moral grounds.

But not only did he continue, he twisted the constitutional provisions and went on to recommend invocation of Article 76 (5), not letting the constitution take its own course.

Experts say Article 76 (5) needs to be invoked by the President when a prime minister appointed under Article 76 (3) fails a confidence vote. On top of that, the President also made a blunder by dissolving the House, without letting Article 76 (5) come into play, according to them.

“When people elect their representatives, they put faith in them and expect them to protect and implement the law of the land,” Mohan Lal Acharya, a constitutional lawyer, told the Post. “If those in power are bent on tearing the constitution apart for their petty interests, relieving them of their positions is the only solution. The constitution belongs to the sovereign people.”

Despite making a great leap forward by transitioning into a republic, Nepal has woefully failed in building strong institutions which are the major pillars of democracy, republicanism and constitutionalism. Instead, blatant attacks on the constitution by the two top institutions—the executive and the President—have stoked concerns that the republican set-up itself is in danger.

Experts say every assault on the constitution is an assault on republicanism, and what is even more unfortunate is that such attacks are being perpetrated by those who are elected to protect it.

“Oli’s hunger for power led to unconstitutional dissolution of the House twice,” Bipin Adhikari, former dean of Kathmandu University School of Law, told the Post. “Oli’s stubbornness has created a fear that peaceful handover of power, as envisioned by the constitution, might be difficult even in the future.”

According to Adhikari, frequent attacks on the constitution are signs that the political leadership’s commitment to democratic principles is fading.

As the country marks the 14th Republic Day, it must be observed with a renewed solemn pledge to safeguard the top law of the country, analysts say.

“The President may not have executive powers, but nothing bars her from holding consultations with cross-party politicians and experts before taking any decisions that can have a long-term impact,” Chandra Kant Gyawali, a senior advocate with a specialisation in constitutional law, told the Post. “She can draw the attention of the executive to her concerns and request to revisit its decisions if they contradict the constitution. She should not only be taking impartial decisions, she should also be seen as taking impartial decisions.”

काठमाडौं । दोस्रो पटक संसद विघटन भएको विषय पनि अदालतमा पुगेपछि शुक्रबार संवैधानिक इजलासमा यसमाथि सुनुवाई हुँदै थियो ।

शुरुमै रिट निवेदककर्ता वकिलहरुले बहस थालेका थिए । रिट निवेदनकर्ता आधा दर्जन वकीलले आफ्ना भनाइ सकाएर शुक्रबारको सुनुवाई करिब-करिब टुंगिदै थियो, वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता गोविन्द बन्दीको प्रवेशले संवैधानिक इजलास कक्षको माहोलमा परिवर्तन भयो।

संवैधानिक इजलासमा रहेका न्यायाधीशमाथि बन्दीले प्रश्न उठाएपछि इजलासको माहोल अशान्त बन्यो । बन्दीले तत्कालीन नेपाल कम्युनिष्ट पार्टीको एकता बदर गर्ने न्यायाधीश बमकुमार श्रेष्ठलाई इजलासमा नबस्न सुझाए ।

त्यसपछि प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्रसमशेर जबरा र वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता गोविन्द बन्दी र महान्यायाधिवक्ता रमेश बडालबीच विवाद शुरु भयो ।

इजलास भित्रको त्यो विवाद

बन्दी : हामी अरूले अदालतको निष्पक्षतामा प्रश्न उठाउन नसकुन् भन्ने चाहन्छौं, बम श्रीमानले आफूलाई यो मुद्दाबाट अलग राख्दा नै त्यस्तो प्रश्न उठ्न पाउँदैन । हामी अदालतको मर्यादाप्रति संवेदनशील छौं। अरूले त्यो मर्यादा खण्डित गर्न खोज्यो भने पनि हामी अगाडि उभिन्छौं। कहिलेकाँही अदालतका आफ्नै कारणले मर्यादा खण्डित हुनसक्नेतर्फ पनि विचार पुर्‍याउनुपर्छ।

राणा : अदालतको र न्यायाधीशको स्वतन्त्रताको विषयमा सबैले सहयोग गर्नुपर्छ। तर, यसरी व्यक्तिपिच्छे कुरा गर्दा, भोलि अर्को पक्षले अरू श्रीमानहरूबारे भन्नुहोला। त्यो बेला के गर्ने? त्यसैले यस्तो कुरामा नजानुहोस्। तपाईंहरूले न्यायाधीशलाई, यो इजलासलाई विश्वास गर्नुपर्छ।

बडाल : कानून व्यवसायीको आचारसंहिता अनुसार पक्ष र विपक्षको वकील एउटै हुनसक्दैन। निवेदक शेरबहादुर देउवा भएको मुद्दामा विपक्षी बनाइएका सभामुख अग्नि सापकोटालाई कानूनी सल्लाह दिनुभएका वकीलहरूले देउवाको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्न कसरी मिल्छ ? यो कुरा सिरियस्ली नोट गरियोस्। इजलासमा रेकर्ड रहोस्।

राणा : यसमा थप विवाद नगरौं। हामी केही गर्दैनौं। तपाईंहरू कारबाहीमा जाने हो कि कता कता जाने हो जानुहोस्। अब आइतबार गरौं । कानून व्यवसायीले आचारसंहिता उल्लंघन गरेको पाइएमा परिषदबाट कारवाही गर्नू, अदालतमा कुरा नउठाउनू ।

वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता शम्भु थापा : यी प्रश्न सकिएका छैनन्। हामी आइतबार फेरि उठाउँछौं। आफ्ना थप कुरा राख्छौं।

इजलासलाई दवावमा राख्ने कोसिस

अघिल्लो पकट संसद विघटन हुँदाको सुनुवाईमा पनि न्यायाधीश लक्षित यस्तै प्रश्न आएको थियो । उतिबेला संवैधानिक इजलासमा रहेका न्यायाधीश हरिकृष्ण कार्की प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा ओलीको पूर्व कानुनी सल्लाहकार भएको पृष्ठभूमि भएको भन्दै ओलीविरुद्धकै मुद्दामा बस्न नमिल्ने तर्क कानुन व्यवसायीले गरेका थिए ।

आफ्नो नामलाई लिएर विवाद भएपछि न्यायाधीश कार्की आफैंले इजलासमा नबस्ने घोषणा गरेका थिए । उनले छाडेपछि रिक्त स्थानमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणाले न्यायाधीश सपना मल्ल प्रधानलाई चयन गरेका थिए ।

प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणासहित न्यायाधीशहरू दीपककुमार कार्की, विश्वम्भरप्रसाद श्रेष्ठ, तेजबहादुर केसी, अनिलकुमार सिन्हा र सपना प्रधान मल्ल रहेको इजलासले प्रधानमन्त्रीले अघिल्लो पटक गरेको संसद विघटनलाई असंवैधानिक ठहर गरेको थियो ।

यसपटकको संवैधानिक इजलासमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणाले हेरफेर गरेका छन् । उनले यसपटक आफू नेतृत्वको इजलासमा दीपककुमार कार्की, आनन्दमोहन भट्टराई, तेजबहादुर केसी र बमकुमार श्रेष्ठलाई राखेका छन् । केसी बाहेक अरु सबै न्यायाधीश नयाँ अनुहारका हुन् ।

श्रेष्ठमाथि प्रश्न उठाएर उनलाई त्यहाबाट अलग गराउन सकिए इजलासमा अघिल्लो विघटनलाई असंवैधानिक करार गर्ने न्यायाधीशहरूको बाहुल्यता हुन्छ भन्ने ठम्याइ विपक्षी वकिलहरुको हुन सक्छ।

तर संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी न्यायाधीशरुहको निष्ठामाथि प्रश्न गर्नु आवश्यक नरहेको बताउँछन्। ‘हामीले न्यायाधीशहरुको निष्ठामा अनावश्यक रुपमा प्रश्न गर्नु जरुरी छैन्,’ अधिकारीले नेपाल प्रेससँग भने, ‘यो खुला इजलास भनेको एउटा प्रणाली हो र यहाँ न्यायिक निर्णय गर्ने जुन तरिका हुन्छन्, त्यो पारदर्शीतामा आधारित हुन्छ । वकिलहरुले बहस गर्दै छन्, फैसलामा कानूनको उल्लेख गर्नुपछ ।’

न्यायाधीशद्वय श्रेष्ठ र कुमार रेग्मीको इजलासले २३ फागुनमा नेकपाको एकतालाई बदर गरेको थियो । नेकपा एकता बदर गर्ने फैसला र अहिलेको संसद विघटनबीच कुनै साइनो नहुने भन्दै अधिकारी न्यायाधीश श्रेष्ठलाई विवादमा तान्न नुहनेमा जोड दिन्छन्।

‘प्रधानमन्त्रीले संसद विटन गरेको र नेकपा एकता बदर गर्ने मुद्दाबीच कुनै साइनो छैन्,’ उनी भन्छन्, ‘ती दुईटै स्वतन्त्र रुपमा आएका थिए र दुईटैमा अदालतले उचित फैसला गरेको मान्दछु ।’

के गर्लान न्यायाधीश ?

वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता थापाले आज उठाइएको प्रश्नलाई आइतबार पनि उठाउने बताएका छन्। यसबाट विपक्षी वकिलहरुले यो विषयलाई नछाड्ने पक्षमा रहेको थाहाहुन्छ ।

तर, यो विषयमा के गर्ने भन्ने सम्पूर्ण अधिकार प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणामा छ । राणाले इजलासमा न्यायाधीशमाथि प्रश्न उठाउने वकिललाई न्यायाधीश र इजलासमाथि विश्वास राख्न भनेका छन् । अर्कातिर उनले वकिलहरुमाथि कारवाही चलाउनुपर्छ भन्ने महान्यायाधिवक्ताको भनाइलाई पनि खासै महत्व दिएनन्।

हक्की स्वभावका राणाले यसमा वकिलहरुको कुरा सुनेर पुर्नविचार गर्ने देखिदैन । अघिल्लो पटक न्यायाधीश कार्की आफैं पछि हटेकाले विवाद साम्य भएको थियो । यसपटक न्यायाधीश श्रेष्ठले आफै छाडे एउटा कुरा नत्र, यसमा फेरबदल हुने देखिदैन ।

आजको विवादपछि सुनुवाईलाई आइतबारसम्म स्थगित गरि राणाले मुद्दालाई ‘हेर्दा हेर्दै’मा राखेका छन् । सुनुवाईको पहिलो दिन रिट निवेदक आधा दर्जन वकिलहरुले बहस गरेका छन् । न्यायाधीश राणाले बहसको सुरूमै ‘टाइम कार्ड’ लागू गरेर निवेदक प्रत्येक वकिललाई १०-१० मिनेटको समय मात्रै दिए। यसबाट यस पकटकको सुनुवाईलाई राणाले ‘फास्ट ट्रयाक’मा लैजान चाहेको देखिन्छ ।

श्रेष्ठमाथिको प्रश्न राणा र केसीमाथि पनि

नेकपा एकता बदर गरेको आरोप श्रेष्ठमाथि छ । श्रेष्ठ र रेग्मीको इजलासले नेपाल कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी निर्वाचन आयोगमा ऋषि कट्टेलको नाममा रहेको भन्दै प्रचण्ड र केपी ओली नेतृत्वको नेकपालाई कि त अर्को नाम लिएर १५ दिनभित्र निर्वाचन आयोगमा जान वा पूर्ववत अवस्थामा फर्कन भनेको थियो ।

सो फैसलाले झण्डै पार्टीविहीन अवस्थामा पुगेका ओलीलाई राहत दियो भने प्रचण्ड-माधव नेपाल समूहलाई आहत भयो । सो फैसलाले नेपालको राजनीतिलाई नै फरक दिशामा लगि दियो ।

१५ दिनभित्र ओली र प्रचण्ड वा प्रचण्ड-माधव कोही पनि आयोगमा अर्को नाम लिएर गएनन् । शम्भु थापाहरुकै सुझाव बमोजिम प्रचण्ड सो फैसला पुनरावलोकनको माग लिएर सर्वोच्च अदालत गए ।

चैत १९ गते सर्वोच्चले उनको पुनरावलोकन नलाग्ने फैसला गरेर रेग्मी र श्रेष्ठको फैसला सदर गरेको थियो । सो फैसला गर्ने पूर्ण इजलासमा अहिले संवैधानिक इजलासको अध्यक्षता गरिरहेका प्रधान न्यायाधीश राणा र सदस्य तेजबहादुर केसी थिए ।

यदि गोविन्द बन्दी र शम्भु थापाहरुले जिकिर गरेजस्तो नेकपा एकता बदर सम्बन्धी फैसला गरेका आधारमा बमकुमार संवैधानिक इजलासमा बस्न नमिल्ने हो भने सोही मापदण्ड राणा र केसीमा पनि लाग्नेछ ।

संविधानले नै संवैधानिक इजलासको अध्यक्ष प्रधान न्यायाधीश हुने भनेको छ । न्यायाधीशका विगतका फैसलाका आधारमा वकिलले इजलासमा बस्न पाउने र नपाउने भनेर विवाद गर्ने हो भने इजलास नै बस्न नसक्ने तर्क राणाको छ ।

महान्यायाधिवक्ता बडाल भने विगतबाट हौसिएका केही व्यक्तिले इजलासलाई दबाबमा राख्नका लागि यस्ता कुरा उठाउने गरेको बताउछन् ।

Constitution Watch Group has issued a press release condemning the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

The group accused PM Oli, albeit indirectly, of attempting to capture state power. “At a time when unified attempt is expected in the House to fight the COVID crisis, any attempt to create a situation in a bid to capture state power is wrong,” the group stated in its release.

The group said the dissolution of the HoR created serious obstacles that hindered the implementation of the constitutional system, parliamentary democracy and judicial system.

The group said that instead of utilising the parliamentary system for the benefit of all by following the SC’s decision reinstating the HoR, the government appeared to have acted with a strategic plan with a view to reject the judicial decision.

“The government’s act was not consistent with the rule of law,” it added.

Constitution Watch Group said that if the legislative objectives were fulfilled through ordinances, then the validity and relevance of parliamentary elections and the Parliament would decrease.

The group said united efforts should have been made from the Parliament to address the growing crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, but instead of doing so, those responsible for improving the situation appeared to be crossing limits in a bid to capture state power.

According to the group, the environment was not conducive for free elections due to the current lockdown and the possibility of health emergency.

The group added that the government should have sought to resolve issues by taking the House into confidence.

The watch group said the government failed to win confidence when it was given a chance to form the government.”Whoever is responsible for not allowing the constitutional process to move ahead for forming an alternative government, their activities cannot be termed a good omen for Nepal’s democracy and constitutional system,” the group said in its release.

It also said that activities aimed at failing the constitutional system should not be allowed.

They have appealed all to introspect and pave the way for resolution of the issues. “We urge those who give low priority to people’s lives, butt high priority to their lust for power to shed their illusion,” the group added.

Former chief justices Kalyan Shrestha and Sushila Karki, Chair of Nepal Law Society Tirthaman Shakya, Executive Director of Nepal Law Society Krishna Man Pradhan, Chair of Nepal Bar Association Chandeshwar Shrestha and constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari are associated with the group.

संसद् अधिवेशन नचलेका बेला अति आवश्यक परेर कानुन संशोधन वा नयाँ कानुनी व्यवस्थाका लागि अध्यादेश ल्याउने संवैधानिक अधिकार दुरूपयोग

काठमाडौँ — लोकतान्त्रिक विधि र प्रक्रियाबाट प्रतिनिधिसभामा बहुमत ल्याएर प्रधानमन्त्री बनेका केपी शर्मा ओली जनप्रतिनिधिमूलक थलोलाई मासेर अध्यादेशमार्फत शासन सञ्चालन गर्न उद्यत भएका छन् । कानुन निर्माणमा संसद्लाई निरन्तर बाइपास गरेका ओलीका लागि प्रतिनिधिसभा नै नरहेपछि अध्यादेशमार्फत शासन चलाउन झन् अनुकूल भएको छ ।

पछिल्लो पटक प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गरिएको दुई दिन नबित्दै नागरिकता ऐनलाई संशोधन गर्ने अध्यादेश ल्याइएको छ ।

महत्त्वपूर्ण र सार्वजनिक चासोको विषय मानिएको नागरिकता ऐन संशोधन गर्ने विधेयक प्रतिनिधिसभामा तीन वर्ष अड्किएका बेला पारित गराउन चासो नदेखाएको सरकारले सत्ता राजनीतिको लाभहानि हेरेर अध्यादेश जारी गरेको छ । जन्मका आधारमा नागरिकता पाएका व्यक्तिका सन्तानले वंशजको नागरिकता पाउने तथा बाबुको पहिचान हुन नसकेका व्यक्तिले आमाको नाममा समेत नागरिकता पाउने दुईवटा व्यवस्था अध्यादेशमा छ । ती दुवै विषय संविधानले नै दिएको अधिकार हो । नागरिकता ऐन २०६३ संशोधन नहुँदा संविधान आएको साढे ५ वर्ष भइसक्दा पनि संवैधानिक व्यवस्था कार्यान्वयनमा आउन सकेको थिएन । विघटित प्रतिनिधिसभाको राज्य व्यवस्था समितिले अहिले अध्यादेशमार्फत ल्याइएका विषय समेटेर प्रतिवेदन गत वर्षको वर्षे अधिवेशनमै सदनमा पेस गरिसकेको थियो । वैवाहिक अंगीकृत नागरिकताका विषयमा भने ओलीपक्षीय सांसदकै अडानका कारण विवाद थियो ।

सर्वोच्च अदालतको आदेशबाट प्रतिनिधिसभा ब्युँतिएपछि गत फागुन २३ गतेबाट प्रतिनिधिसभाको बैठक बसेको थियो । वैशाख ९ सम्म ४४ दिनमा सत्तारूढ दलले उक्त विधेयक पारित गराउन कुनै पहलकदमी लिएन । त्यही अवधिमा सत्ता गठबन्धनका लागि जसपाको महन्थ ठाकुर पक्षसँग प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको निरन्तर संवाद चलेको थियो । जसपाले नागरिकता विधेयक पारित गरिनुपर्ने अडान लिएको थियो । प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीले चाहेको भए अहिले अध्यादेशमार्फत ल्याइएका विषय समेटिएको नागरिकता विधेयकलाई ‘फास्ट ट्र्याक’ बाट संसद्बाट पारित गराउन सक्थे ।

अहिले संविधानमा रहेको व्यवस्था कार्यान्वयनका लागि संसदीय प्रक्रिया छलेर नागरिकता अध्यादेश ल्याइएकाले विवादित बन्न पुगेको छ । संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी संविधान कार्यान्वयनकै लागि संसद्बाट नागरिकता ऐन ल्याउनलाई कसले रोकेको थियो भनेर प्रश्न गर्छन् । ‘लोकतान्त्रिक मुलुकमा कानुन बनाउने संसद्ले हो, त्यसमा पनि नागरिकता जस्तो संवेदनशील विषयलाई सत्ता गठबन्धनको विषय बनाएर अध्यादेश ल्याइनु बिल्कुल गलत हो,’ उनले भने, ‘संसद्मा रहेको विषय त्यहींबाट पारित गराएको भए सर्वस्वीकार्य हुन्थ्यो । यस्तो विरोध हुँदैनथ्यो ।’ सरकार एक्लैले त्यो कानुन ल्याइदिँदा आमनागरिकमा अनेकखाले आशंका पनि उत्पन्न हुन पुगेको उनले उल्लेख गरे ।

प्रतिनिधिसभाको सातौं अधिवेशनको अवधि ४४ दिनमा सरकारले कुनै ‘बिजनेस’ दिएन । तर वैशाख ६ मा अधिवेशन अन्त्य गरेपछि धमाधम अध्यादेश ल्याइए । अहिले एक दर्जन अध्यादेश सक्रिय छन् । प्रतिनिधिसभाको सातौं अधिवेशन अन्त्य र प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको विश्वास प्रस्तावमा मतदानका लागि वैशाख २७ मा बोलाइएको अधिवेशनको बीचमा मात्र सरकारले ८ वटा अध्यादेश ल्यायो । त्यतिबेला यौन हिंसाविरुद्धको केही ऐन संशोधन, फौजदारी कसुर तथा फौजदारी कार्यविधिसम्बन्धी केही ऐन संशोधन, औषधि (तेस्रो संशोधन), संवैधानिक परिषद् (काम, कर्तव्य अधिकार र कार्यविधि) सम्बन्धी (पहिलो संशोधन), सामाजिक सुरक्षा (पहिलो संशोधन), नेपाल प्रहरी र प्रदेश प्रहरी (कार्यसञ्चालन, सुपरिवेक्षण र समन्वय) पहिलो संशोधन, तेजाब तथा अन्य घातक रासायनिक पदार्थ नियमन र रेलवे अध्यादेश ल्याइएका हुन् । त्यसमा रेलवेसम्बन्धी अध्यादेश नयाँ थियो । अरू भने पहिले नै ल्याएर संसद्बाट अनुमोदन नगराईकन फेरि जारी गरिएका हुन् । त्यसबाहेक जेठ ६ गते शपथसम्बन्धी र कोभिड–१९ को संकट व्यवस्थापनसम्बन्धी दुईवटा अध्यादेश ल्याइए ।

ओलीले वैशाख २८ गते लिएको प्रधानमन्त्री पदको शपथ विवादित बनेपछि आफूले चाहेअनुसारको शपथसम्बन्धी अध्यादेश ल्याएका हुन् । कोभिडको विषयलाई तात्कालिक आवश्यकता मान्न सकिए पनि शपथसम्बन्धी अध्यादेश ल्याइहाल्नुको औचित्य कुनै पनि कोणबाट पुष्टि हुँदैन । संविधानमा संसद् अधिवेशनको पहिलो बैठक बसेको ६० दिनभित्र सदनबाट कुनै कारबाही नभए अध्यादेश स्वतः खारेज हुने भनिएको छ । संविधानको त्यही व्यवस्थालाई छल्न ७ वटा अध्यादेशलाई पुनः जारी गरिएको हो । संविधानविद् अधिकारीले संसद्मा ती अध्यादेशउपर छलफल नगराईकन पुनः जारी गर्नु झन् गलत रहेको बताए ।

सबै अध्यादेश उत्तिकै महत्त्व भएकाले तिनमाथि संसद्मा घनिभूत छलफल गराइनुपर्थ्यो । तर, सरकारले त्यसलाई संसद्को विषय नै बनाउन चाहेन । कारण थियो– संवैधानिक परिषद्सम्बन्धी अध्यादेशमाथि विपक्षी दलहरूको चर्को विरोध । फागुन २३ मा प्रतिनिधिसभामा संवैधानिक परिषद्सम्बन्धी अध्यादेश पेस हुँदा कांग्रेस लगायतका दलले विरोध गरेका थिए । त्यसपछि अरू अध्यादेश सदनमा पेस नै गरिएन । ‘सदनबाट अध्यादेश अस्विकार्य हुनुको अर्थ ओलीले नैतिक प्रश्न सामना गर्नुपर्थ्यो, प्रधानमन्त्रीले राजीनामा दिने अवस्था आउन सक्थ्यो वा त्यतिबेलै विश्वासको मत लिनुपर्ने स्थिति निर्माण हुन्थ्यो,’ अधिकारीले भने, ‘त्यस्तै परिस्थिति आकलन गरेर सरकारले अध्यादेशलाई सदनको विषयवस्तु नै नबनाएको देखिन्छ ।’

ओलीले संवैधानिक परिषद्लाई आफूअनुकूल सञ्चालन गर्न मिल्ने गरी ऐनलाई अध्यादेशमार्फत संशोधन गरेका छन् । संवैधानिक परिषद्मा बहाल सदस्यहरूको बहुमत भए गणपूरक संख्या मानिने व्यवस्था अध्यादेशमार्फत गरिएको छ । संवैधानिक परिषद्सम्बन्धी ऐनमा बैठकमा अध्यक्षसहित अन्य चार सदस्य उपस्थित हुनुपर्ने व्यवस्था थियो । संविधानले प्रधानमन्त्री अध्यक्ष रहने परिषद्मा प्रधानन्यायाधीश, प्रतिनिधिसभाका सभामुख, राष्ट्रिय सभाका अध्यक्ष, प्रतिनिधिसभामा विपक्षी दलका नेता र प्रतिनिधिसभाका उपसभामुख सदस्य रहने भनेको छ ।

उपसभामुख पद रिक्त रहेकाले संशोधित व्यवस्थाअनुसार परिषद्मा ३ जनाको उपस्थितिबाटै संवैधानिक निकायमा नियुक्तिहरूको सिफारिस ओलीले गर्दै आएका छन् । प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीले गत वर्ष वैशाख ८ गते पनि अध्यादेशमार्फत परिषद्सम्बन्धी ऐन संशोधन गरेका थिए । तर चौतर्फी विरोध भएपछि चार दिनमै फिर्ता लिए । फेरि गत मंसिर ३० गते अध्यादेशमार्फत ऐनलाई संशोधन गरेर परिषद्मा संवैधानिक निकायका दर्जनौं पदाधिकारीको नियुक्ति गरे । फेरि त्यही अध्यादेश ल्याएर संवैधानिक निकायमा नियुक्तिका लागि सिफारिस गरिएको छ । प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीले प्रतिनिधिसभाका सभामुख, विपक्षी दलका नेताको अनुपस्थितिलाई महत्त्व दिएका छैनन् ।

व्यवस्थापिका संसद्का पूर्वमहासचिव सूर्यकिरण गुरुङ अध्यादेशमार्फत ऐनहरूको संशोधन, नयाँ ऐन निर्माणलाई सरकारको स्वेच्छारिताका रूपमा अर्थ्याउँछन् । ‘अध्यादेश भनेको असामान्य परिस्थितिमा अति आवश्यक पर्दामात्रै ल्याउने हो, सरकारलाई जतिबेला पनि अध्यादेश ल्याउने अधिकार हुँदैन,’ उनले भने, ‘यसरी एकपछि अर्को अध्यादेश ल्याएर शासन व्यवस्था चलाउन खोज्नु भनेको अराजकता हो ।’

संवैधानिक निकायमा स्वच्छ छविका स्वतन्त्र खाले व्यक्तिहरूको नियुक्ति होस् र त्यो सबैका लागि स्विकार्य होस् भनेर संवैधानिक परिषद्को व्यवस्था गरिएको तथा त्यसमा रहने व्यक्तिहरूको व्यवस्था संविधानमै गरिएको उनले उल्लेख गरे । ‘तर अहिले संविधानको प्रावधानलाई समेत बेवास्ता गरी संवैधानिक परिषद्लाई मनलागी चलाउन खोजिएको छ,’ उनले भने, ‘आफ्ना निकट र भागबन्डाबाट नियुक्ति गर्नलाई परिषद्कै मर्यादा घटाउने गरी अध्यादेशमार्फत ऐन संशोधन गरिएको छ ।’ संसद्, सरकार र संवैधानिक निकायहरूबीच कायम रहनुपर्ने शक्ति सन्तुलनलाई नै समाप्त पार्ने खेल भएको उनले टिप्पणी गरे ।

संसद्को एउटा अधिवेशनको अन्त्य र अर्को अधिवेशनको प्रारम्भबीचको अन्तर ६ महिनाभन्दा बढी हुन नहुने संवैधानिक व्यवस्था छ । त्यही ६ महिनाको अवधिमा कुनै असामान्य अवस्था आइपुग्यो, भएका कानुन संशोधन नगरीकन भएन वा नयाँ कानुन ल्याउनुपर्ने भयो भने त्यसका लागि मात्रै अध्यादेशको बाटो प्रयोग गर्नुपर्ने गुरुङले बताए । ‘पहिले–पहिले पनि अध्यादेश ल्याइएकै हो । तर, यत्रो विधि संसद्लाई छल्ने काम भएको थिएन,’ उनले भने, ‘अहिले त, कानुन बनाउने निकाय पनि कार्यपालिका नै हो भने जसरी एकपछि अर्को अध्यादेश ल्याइएको छ । यसले लोकतान्त्रिक संरचनाहरूलाई नै कमजोर बनाउँदै लान्छ ।’

सरकारले गत वर्ष वैशाख ८ मा दल फुटाउन सहज हुने मनसायले राजनीतिक दलसम्बन्धी ऐनलाई पनि अध्यादेशमार्फत संशोधन गरेको थियो । तत्कालीन समाजवादी पार्टीका असन्तुष्ट केही सांसदलाई अलग पार्टी खोल्न सहज हुने गरी सरकारले ऐन संशोधन गरेको थियो । तर त्यसले कुनै पनि राष्ट्रिय आवश्यकता पुष्टि गर्न सकेको थिएन । तीव्र आलोचनाकै कारण त्यसलाई सरकारले फिर्ता लिनुपरेको थियो । गत असोजमा तेजाब तथा अन्य घातक रायायनिक पदार्थ (नियमन), फौजदारी कसुर तथा कार्यविधिसम्बन्धी तथा नेपाल प्रहरी र प्रदेश प्रहरी (कार्यसञ्चालन, सुपरिवेक्षण) सम्बन्धी आदेश ल्याइएको थियो । ९ महिनादेखि ती कानुन अध्यादेशकै भरमा चलिरहेको छ ।

त्यसपछि मंसिरमा यौन हिंसाविरुद्ध केही ऐनलाई संशोधन, सामाजिक सुरक्षा र संवैधानिक परिषद्सम्बन्धी अध्यादेश ल्याइयो । माघमा बेपत्ता पारिएका व्यक्तिको छानबिन, सत्य निरूपण तथा मेलमिलाप आयोगसम्बन्धी अध्यादेश ल्याइएको थियो । संविधानविद् अधिकारीले संसद्लाई निष्क्रिय बनाएर एकपछि अर्को अध्यादेश ल्याउने र त्यसबाटै शासन चलाउने पद्धतिलाई प्रजातान्त्रिक अभ्यास नमानिने बताए । ‘प्रत्येक सांसद र राजनीतिक दलको धारणाका आधारमा कानुन बनाउने अधिकार संसद्लाई हुन्छ । अध्यादेशमा बाँकीलाई पेलेर जाने नियत हुन्छ,’ उनले भने ।

[प्रकाशित : जेष्ठ १२, २०७८ ०६:४८]

KATHMANDU, May 26: The Constitution Watch Committee has concluded that the controversial move of Prime Minister K P Oli to dissolve parliament after he lost crucial vote of confidence in parliament has brought serious deviation in constitutional system, parliamentary democracy and the implementation of judicial system in the country.

Issuing a statement on Wednesday, the CWC, which is led by former Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha, also expressed serious concerns over the tendency of those in power to do anything possible to prolong their stay in power. The CWC maintained that it is against the principle of rule of law to have a strategic thinking to displace justification of the judicial decision to reinstate parliament instead of making beneficial use of the parliamentary system after the apex court earlier reinstated the dissolved parliament.

The CWC also said that the move of Prime Minister K P Oli not to facilitate constitutional process to reach its natural conclusion after his government repeatedly failed to secure vote of confidence in parliament is not a good sign for democracy and constitutional system in the country.

Those issuing the statement include Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, Himalaya SJB Rana, Tirtha Man Shakya, Khim Lal Devkota, Mohan Das Manandhar, Dr.George Varughese, Dr Sheelu Manandhar Bajracharya, Dr Rishikesh Wagle, Dr Bipin Adhikari, Chandeshwar Shrestha and Krishna Man Pradhan.

Nepal’s politics is now back again to the chief justice’s court–the Supreme Court.

As many as 146 members, who until Friday night were lawmakers, of the opposition alliance filed a joint petition at the Supreme Court with at least seven demands, including reinstatement of the House of Representatives and an order to appoint Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba prime minister.

The opposition alliance consists of the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), the Madhav Nepal faction of the CPN-UML, the Upendra Yadav-Baburam Bhattarai faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party and Janamorcha Nepal.

It was an unprecedented display of unity by over 50 percent of those who until last week were lawmakers against Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli who late on Friday night recommended House dissolution, for a second time in five months, after failing to get reappointed. President Bidya Devi Bhandari endorsed the recommendation and declared snap polls for November 12 and 19.

The petitioners include five former prime ministers–Deuba, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal and Baburam Bhattarai–as well as several former deputy prime ministers and scores of ministers.

According to leaders, 61 members from the Congress, 49 from the Maoist Centre, 23 from the Nepal faction of the UML, 12 from the Janata Samajbadi and one from Janmorcha have signed the petition.

A Congress leader said there is enough evidence before the court to quash the President’s House dissolution move.

“What more evidence is required when over 50 percent of lawmakers have appeared in person before the court to say that they had provided their signatures to the President [on Friday],” Gagan Thapa of the Congress party told the Post over the phone after the opposition alliance filed the petition. “Everyone knows that the President took the decision with a malafide intention and there was no objective ground to reject Deuba as prime minister.”

The court now will have to test whether President Bhandari’s decision was legal and constitutional to say Deuba’s claims for the post of prime minister were insufficient.

After being reappointed under Article 76 (3) as the leader of the party with the highest number of members in Parliament on May 13, following his defeat in the confidence vote on May 10, Oli on Thursday asked the President to initiate Article 76 (5) to appoint a new prime minister. A statement from the Office of the President asked lawmakers to lay claim to a new government as Oli wanted to pave the way for the same as there was no political ground to win the vote of confidence.

Constitutional experts said that the recommendation itself was unconstitutional.

After his appointment, Oli was supposed to secure a vote of confidence within 30 days. To invoke Article 76 (5), experts say, either a prime minister appointed under Article 76 (3) has to fail a trust vote or he or she must resign.

However, Bhandari complied with Oli’s orders and gave lawmakers until Friday 5pm to stake claim to the new government.

Oli, however, on Friday reached Sheetal Niwas long before the opposition alliance to stake claim to the government, in what analysts say making a spectacle of himself. Many wondered how Oli could claim to have the backing of 153 lawmakers just a day after asserting that he did not have political ground to secure a vote of confidence. The opposition alliance, however, had provided signatures of as many as 149 lawmakers, who said they backed Deuba as prime minister.

But at 11:38 pm, the President said both Oli and Deuba’s claims were insufficient. And at 1:49 am, she dissolved the House.

Thapa said he hoped that the court would not take long to pass a judgment on their petition.

“It’s a straightforward case,” Thapa told the Post. “We are quite sure the court won’t go against its own interpretation of the constitution made while passing a verdict on Oli’s earlier House dissolution of December 20.”

While overturning Oli’s December House dissolution, the Constitutional Bench said it was illegal and added that the House cannot be dissolved until all the provisions related to government formation are exhausted.

Of the four provisions in the constitution for the formation of the government, Article 76 (5) had been invoked but it had not really come into play, as a new prime minister was not appointed under it.

Experts say the House gets automatically dissolved only when a prime minister appointed under Article 76 (5) fails to secure a vote of confidence within 30 days from the date of his/her appointment.

Bipin Adhikari, former dean of Kathmandu University School of Law, said Friday’s House dissolution is tantamount to a contempt of court, as the Constitutional Bench has clearly explained on what conditions the House can be dissolved.

“How can the President act against a precedent set by the Supreme Court just three months ago?” Adhikari told the Post. “There are even strong grounds this time for the court to reinstate the House compared to last time.”

According to Adhikari, it, however, is not the court that says who should be the prime minister.

“The court can just order the defendants to follow the due procedure,” said Adhikari. “The appointment of a prime minister is a political process. The court can only look into whether the constitutional requirements were fulfilled or not.”

Apart from House reinstatement and appointment of Deuba as prime minister, the petitioners have demanded that the court issue necessary orders, including a writ of mandamus, in the name of defendants not to take action against those who signed in favour of Deuba to appoint him prime minister under Article 7 6(5).

They have also demanded that the court issue an interim order not to implement the decision of the President to dissolve Parliament and hold polls and not to publish the election programmes during this pandemic.

The petitioners have also demanded that the court make necessary provisions to call the House session so as to ensure that the constitutional deadline of presenting the budget on May 29 is not missed.

Besides, they have also demanded that the court stop the caretaker [Oli] government from taking important decisions that can have long-term impacts.

Though the petitioners believe a court verdict is forthcoming soon, it is not clear how long it can take, as last time the court took two months to pass its judgment.

Monday’s petition by the opposition alliance demanding the reinstatement of the House comes exactly three months after the court restored it following Oli’s earlier December 20 dissolution.

The opposition alliance’s petition follows its decision on Saturday that it would fight against the prime minister and President’s unconstitutional moves politically and legally.

Leaders from the opposition alliance say their move of challenging Oli and Bhandari’s House dissolution in the court of law is part of their legal fight.

They will continue to raise voices from various platforms, as street protests are not possible given the pandemic, in their individual capacities as part of their political fight against Oli and Bhandari’s unconstitutional moves, they said.

Meanwhile, Oli on Monday initiated action against as many as 11 members from the Nepal faction.

The UML’s Standing Committee meeting decided to strip 11 leaders, including Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal, of all party responsibilities and posts as well as party membership for supporting Deuba’s bid to become prime minister.

According to a statement, the party has also sought clarification from 12 other leaders.

All these leaders are among those 26 who supported Deuba’s bid on Friday. They have also put their signatures on the opposition alliance’s petition.

They said they are not worried about the action initiated by their party anymore.

“We will stand by the opposition alliance to safeguard the political achievements,” said Bhim Rawal, vice-chair of the UML who is close to Nepal. “Our alliance may also continue till the next elections.”

But many say the current alliance against Oli may help reinstate the House but it will be too early to say whether all the constituents could stand together until next elections, given their weak moral political foundations.

“It’s hard to predict for how long this bond will continue,” said Lokraj Baral, a former professor of political science at Tribhuvan University. “The current alliance nonetheless looks strong at this point of time, which could be helpful in reinstating the House.”

According to Baral, the constituent groups in the alliance have followed different political ideologies and come from various schools of thought, hence, for how long they can walk together is too early to tell.

Baral said there are enough grounds for the court to restore the House, but if it does not, more political confrontations are likely.

“Oli is a shrewd politician and he has been using the Office of the President very cleverly to his advantage,” said Baral.

The political uncertainty unleashed by Oli amid the coronavirus pandemic which is ravaging the country has already caused concerns among public health experts, doctors and the general populace.

With no certainty when the vaccines will arrive, doctors say it is too early to say when the cases will start to subside. They warned that going for elections could spell a disaster like in India.

Nepal’s Covid-19 death toll has already reached 6,531, with 185 new fatalities reported on Monday. The country reported 7,220 new cases in the past 24 hours. The number of active cases stands at 115,447.

The longer the court takes to pass the verdict on the House dissolution, the more political uncertainty the country will face, which would impact the response to the pandemic, which has remained invariably poor.

Constitutional experts say if the court attempts to fast-track the hearing, an early verdict is possible and that there is enough evidence even to prove malafide intentions of the defendants.

“The President did not give sufficient time to form an alternative government. She took the decision based on assumptions instead of just looking into whether the claimant from the opposition alliance had enough numbers to back him,” said Adhikari. “Above all, the President flouted the Supreme Court’s earlier verdict. And this could be an issue of contempt of court.”

संसद् नभएको अवस्थामा आपत्कालीन प्रयोजनका लागि अध्यादेश ल्याउने अभ्यास छ । असार मसान्तसम्म राजस्व उठाउन र खर्च गर्न सरकारलाई बाधा छैन । त्यसैले साउन १ बाट कार्यान्वयन हुने र प्रतिनिधिसभा ब्युँतने सम्भावनासमेत रहेकाले अध्यादेशबाट बजेट ल्याउन नहुने संविधान तथा अर्थविद्हरुको धारणा छ ।

काठमाडौँ — मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपति विद्यादेवी भण्डारीले पुनः प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गरिदिएपछि आगामी आर्थिक वर्षको बजेटमा अन्योल देखिएको छ । संविधानमा बजेट ल्याउने दिन जेठ १५ मा संसद् नै नहुने, अब राष्ट्रिय सभामा मात्रै पेस गर्ने वा जेठ १५ को साटो कहिले ल्याउने र अध्यादेशबाट ल्याउन पाउने/नपाउनेबारे स्पष्ट नहुँदा अन्योल देखिएको हो ।

सरकारले भने अध्यादेशबाट जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउने गृहकार्य गरिरहेको छ । साउन १ बाट बजेट कार्यान्वयन हुने दस्ताबेज भएको र त्यति बेलासम्म प्रतिनिधिसभा ब्युँतने सम्भावनासमेत रहेकाले अध्यादेश ल्याउन नहुने संविधान तथा अर्थविद्हरूको धारणा छ । संविधान जारी भएपछि बजेटका लागि यस्तो अन्योल पहिलो पटक सिर्जना भएको हो । संसद् नभएको तर संविधानले जेठ १५ मै बाध्यकारी व्यवस्था गरेकाले अब अध्यादेशमार्फत बजेट आउने अर्थमन्त्रीका आर्थिक सल्लाहकार प्रकाश श्रेष्ठले बताए ।

सरकारले प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गर्ने र अध्यादेशबाटै बजेट ल्याउने योजनासाथ काम गरिरहेकाले बजेट अधिवेशन नै बोलाएको थिएन । प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटनपछि अध्यादेशबाट बजेट आउने निश्चित जस्तै भए पनि नीति तथा कार्यक्रम र बजेटको सिद्धान्त तथा प्राथमिकता भने टरेको छ । ‘नीति तथा कार्यक्रम र बजेटका सिद्धान्त र प्राथमिकताको सम्भावना टर्‍यो,’ सल्लाहकार श्रेष्ठले भने, ‘संविधानले तोकेकै मितिमा बजेटसँग सम्बद्ध सबै विधेयक अध्यादेशबाट ल्याउने गरी तयारी गरिरहेका छौं ।’

दलहरूको सत्ताको दाउपेचमा बजेट बन्धक बनाउनबाट जोगाउन भनेरै संविधानले यससम्बन्धी बाध्यकारी व्यवस्था गरेको हो । त्यो व्यवस्थालाई समेत छल्न सरकारले प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गर्‍यो । ‘यस्तो अवस्थामा सरकारले संविधानले तोकिदिएको मापदण्डलाई समात्नु स्वाभाविक हो,’ संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी भन्छन्, ‘सर्वोच्चले प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटनको मुद्दा परेमा जेठ १५ अगावै निर्णय गरिदिनुपर्छ भन्ने बाध्यकारी अवस्था छैन ।’

प्रतिनिधिसभा नभएपछि सरकारले अध्यादेशबाट ल्याएको बजेटको वैधताबारे अदालतले परीक्षण गर्ने आधार रहेको उनले बताए । ‘किनभने संसद् विघटन गर्ने, संसद्लाई वास्ता नगरी अन्य प्रक्रियाबाट बजेट ल्याउने परम्परामाथि सर्वोच्च अदालतले विगतमा विभिन्न आदेश जारी गरिसकेको छ । सर्वोच्चले बजेटलाई मनोमानी र स्वेच्छाचारी हिसाबले लिन हुँदैन, संसद्ले नै बजेट बनाउनुपर्छ भनेर आदेशहरू दिएको छ,’ अधिकारीले भने, ‘त्यसकारण संविधान बनाउने क्रममा विगतका विकृत अभ्यास नदोहोरिऊन् भनेर मिति किटान गरिएको हो । यस्तो अवस्थामा बजेट र अध्यादेशबारे सर्वोच्चले भूतप्रभावी निर्णय पनि गरिदिन सक्छ ।’

संविधानको धारा ११९ अनुसार ‘नेपाल सरकारका अर्थमन्त्रीले आर्थिक वर्षको सम्बन्धमा संघीय संसद्को दुवै सदनको संयुक्त बैठकमा’ बजेटसँग सम्बन्धित विधेयकहरू पेस गर्नुपर्नेछ । प्रतिनिधिसभा नहुँदा बजेटमा राष्ट्रिय सभाको मात्रै भूमिका के रहने स्पष्ट छैन । ‘बजेट साउन १ बाट कार्यान्वयन हुने कानुन हो । साउन १ बाट काम सुरु गर्न जेठ १५ मा अध्यादेश किन ल्याउने ?,’ पूर्वअर्थसचिव रामेश्वर खनाल भन्छन्, ‘साउन १ सम्म संसद् पुनःस्थापना हुन सक्छ । भएन भने असार मसान्तमा अध्यादेश ल्याउनुपर्छ । अहिले ल्याउनु हुँदैन ।’ तर संविधानले जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउनुपर्ने मिति तोकेको छ नि ?

खनाल भन्छन्, ‘संविधानले दुवै सदनको संयुक्त बैठकमा पेस गर्ने भनेको हो । संविधानले जेठ १५ मा प्रतिनिधिसभा हुँदैन भन्ने नै कल्पना गरेको छैन । प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गरेर सरकारले नै संवैधानिक संकट निम्त्याइसकेपछि अहिले आपत् परेझैं गरेर अध्यादेश जारी गर्न हुँदैन ।’ अध्यादेशबाट बजेट ल्याउन अहिले कुनै आपत्कालीन अवस्था नरहेको उनको भनाइ छ । अध्यादेश संसद् नभएको अवस्थामा आपत्कालीन प्रयोजनका लागि ल्याउने अभ्यास हो । खनालले भनेझैं आगामी असार मसान्तसम्म गत आर्थिक वर्षमै संसद्ले पास गरेका बजेटसँग सम्बन्धित कानुनहरूले राजस्व र खर्च गर्न सरकारलाई कुनै बाधा परेको छैन ।

‘संविधान उल्लंघन गर्दै प्रतिनिधिसभाको विघटन गरिसकेपछि संविधानको पालना गर्न जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउँछौं भनेर गाईजात्रा देखाउनु हुँदैन,’ खनालले भने ।

संविधान जारी भएपछिका पाँच आर्थिक वर्ष (२०७३/७४ देखि २०७७/७८ सम्म) का बजेट संसद्मै पेस भई नयाँ आर्थिक वर्षअगावै पास भएर कार्यान्वयनमा आएका हुन् । नयाँ संविधानअनुसार अहिले पहिलो पटक बजेट राजनीतिक सिकार भएको छ । राष्ट्रपति र प्रधानमन्त्रीको कदमविरुद्ध कानुनी लडाइँ लड्ने भन्दै प्रतिपक्ष गठनबन्धनका १४९ सांसदले सर्वोच्चमा रिट दायर गर्ने भएका छन् । सर्वोच्चले जेठ १५ अगावै निर्णय गरी प्रतिनिधिसभा ब्युँताए बजेट संसद्मै पेस गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । सर्वोच्चको निर्णयमा ढिलाइ वा प्रतिनिधिसभा नब्युँतिएको अवस्थामा के गर्ने भन्ने अन्योल भने कायमै रहने देखिन्छ ।

‘यस्तो परिस्थितिमा अध्यादेशबाट जसरी पनि जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउनुपर्छ जस्तो लाग्दैन,’ संविधानको आर्थिक कार्य प्रणालीका मस्यौदाकार शंकर शर्मा भन्छन्, ‘यसलाई कानुन तथा संविधानविद्हरूबाट थप व्याख्या आवश्यक परेको छ ।’ यसका लागि शुक्रबार राष्ट्रपति तथा प्रधानमन्त्रीको कदमविरुद्ध पर्ने मुद्दा र निर्णय नभएसम्मका लागि सरकारले हतार गर्न नहुने विज्ञहरूको धारणा छ ।

संसद् नब्युँतने र यो चुनावी सरकार भइरहे नियमित कार्यक्रमहरू मात्रै समावेश गरेर अध्यादेशमार्फत बजेट सार्वजनिक गर्नुपर्ने पूर्वअर्थ सचिव शान्तराज सुवेदीको धारणा छ । त्यसका लागि सरकारलाई पछिल्लो उदाहरण खिलराज रेग्मी सरकारका अर्थमन्त्री शंकर कोइरालाले ल्याएको बजेट हो । ‘प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन र चुनाव घोषणा भएको अवस्थाले यो कामचलाउ सरकार हो । त्यसकारण यसले नयाँ र लोकप्रिय कार्यक्रमसहित बजेट ल्याउन पाउँदैन,’ खिलराज रेग्मी सरकारका पालाका अर्थ सचिव सुवेदी भन्छन्, ‘सामाजिक सुरक्षा भत्ता, तलब वृद्धिका काम त गर्नै हुँदैन । जसले मुलुकलाई दीर्घकालीन दायित्व थप्ने काम गर्छ ।’

नयाँ कार्यक्रम, तलब भत्ता वृद्धिसम्बन्धी दीर्घकालीन दायित्व सिर्जना गर्ने कार्यक्रमबारेको निर्णय नयाँ जनमतबाट म्यान्डेड प्राप्त सरकारलाई छाडिदिनुपर्ने उनको धारणा छ । ‘त्यसकारण चुनावलाई ध्यानमा राखेर, आफैंले जसरी पनि चुनाव जित्नुपर्छ भन्ने हिसाबले बजेट ल्याइनु हुँदैन,’ सुवेदी भन्छन्, ‘पुराना कार्यक्रमलाई निरन्तरता, तोकिएको नयाँ निर्वाचन, आउँदो वर्ष हुने स्थानीय तहको निर्वाचन र महामारी नियन्त्रणमा मात्रै केन्द्रित भएर बजेट ल्याउनुपर्छ ।’

[प्रकाशित : जेष्ठ ९, २०७८ ०७:१८]

काठमाडौँ — मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपति विद्यादेवी भण्डारीले पुनः प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गरिदिएपछि आगामी आर्थिक वर्षको बजेटमा अन्योल देखिएको छ । संविधानमा बजेट ल्याउने दिन जेठ १५ मा संसद् नै नहुने, अब राष्ट्रिय सभामा मात्रै पेस गर्ने वा जेठ १५ को साटो कहिले ल्याउने र अध्यादेशबाट ल्याउन पाउने/नपाउनेबारे स्पष्ट नहुँदा अन्योल देखिएको हो ।

सरकारले भने अध्यादेशबाट जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउने गृहकार्य गरिरहेको छ । साउन १ बाट बजेट कार्यान्वयन हुने दस्ताबेज भएको र त्यति बेलासम्म प्रतिनिधिसभा ब्युँतने सम्भावनासमेत रहेकाले अध्यादेश ल्याउन नहुने संविधान तथा अर्थविद्हरूको धारणा छ । संविधान जारी भएपछि बजेटका लागि यस्तो अन्योल पहिलो पटक सिर्जना भएको हो । संसद् नभएको तर संविधानले जेठ १५ मै बाध्यकारी व्यवस्था गरेकाले अब अध्यादेशमार्फत बजेट आउने अर्थमन्त्रीका आर्थिक सल्लाहकार प्रकाश श्रेष्ठले बताए ।

सरकारले प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गर्ने र अध्यादेशबाटै बजेट ल्याउने योजनासाथ काम गरिरहेकाले बजेट अधिवेशन नै बोलाएको थिएन । प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटनपछि अध्यादेशबाट बजेट आउने निश्चित जस्तै भए पनि नीति तथा कार्यक्रम र बजेटको सिद्धान्त तथा प्राथमिकता भने टरेको छ । ‘नीति तथा कार्यक्रम र बजेटका सिद्धान्त र प्राथमिकताको सम्भावना टर्‍यो,’ सल्लाहकार श्रेष्ठले भने, ‘संविधानले तोकेकै मितिमा बजेटसँग सम्बद्ध सबै विधेयक अध्यादेशबाट ल्याउने गरी तयारी गरिरहेका छौं ।’

दलहरूको सत्ताको दाउपेचमा बजेट बन्धक बनाउनबाट जोगाउन भनेरै संविधानले यससम्बन्धी बाध्यकारी व्यवस्था गरेको हो । त्यो व्यवस्थालाई समेत छल्न सरकारले प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गर्‍यो । ‘यस्तो अवस्थामा सरकारले संविधानले तोकिदिएको मापदण्डलाई समात्नु स्वाभाविक हो,’ संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी भन्छन्, ‘सर्वोच्चले प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटनको मुद्दा परेमा जेठ १५ अगावै निर्णय गरिदिनुपर्छ भन्ने बाध्यकारी अवस्था छैन ।’

प्रतिनिधिसभा नभएपछि सरकारले अध्यादेशबाट ल्याएको बजेटको वैधताबारे अदालतले परीक्षण गर्ने आधार रहेको उनले बताए । ‘किनभने संसद् विघटन गर्ने, संसद्लाई वास्ता नगरी अन्य प्रक्रियाबाट बजेट ल्याउने परम्परामाथि सर्वोच्च अदालतले विगतमा विभिन्न आदेश जारी गरिसकेको छ । सर्वोच्चले बजेटलाई मनोमानी र स्वेच्छाचारी हिसाबले लिन हुँदैन, संसद्ले नै बजेट बनाउनुपर्छ भनेर आदेशहरू दिएको छ,’ अधिकारीले भने, ‘त्यसकारण संविधान बनाउने क्रममा विगतका विकृत अभ्यास नदोहोरिऊन् भनेर मिति किटान गरिएको हो । यस्तो अवस्थामा बजेट र अध्यादेशबारे सर्वोच्चले भूतप्रभावी निर्णय पनि गरिदिन सक्छ ।’

संविधानको धारा ११९ अनुसार ‘नेपाल सरकारका अर्थमन्त्रीले आर्थिक वर्षको सम्बन्धमा संघीय संसद्को दुवै सदनको संयुक्त बैठकमा’ बजेटसँग सम्बन्धित विधेयकहरू पेस गर्नुपर्नेछ । प्रतिनिधिसभा नहुँदा बजेटमा राष्ट्रिय सभाको मात्रै भूमिका के रहने स्पष्ट छैन । ‘बजेट साउन १ बाट कार्यान्वयन हुने कानुन हो । साउन १ बाट काम सुरु गर्न जेठ १५ मा अध्यादेश किन ल्याउने ?,’ पूर्वअर्थसचिव रामेश्वर खनाल भन्छन्, ‘साउन १ सम्म संसद् पुनःस्थापना हुन सक्छ । भएन भने असार मसान्तमा अध्यादेश ल्याउनुपर्छ । अहिले ल्याउनु हुँदैन ।’ तर संविधानले जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउनुपर्ने मिति तोकेको छ नि ? खनाल भन्छन्, ‘संविधानले दुवै सदनको संयुक्त बैठकमा पेस गर्ने भनेको हो । संविधानले जेठ १५ मा प्रतिनिधिसभा हुँदैन भन्ने नै कल्पना गरेको छैन । प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गरेर सरकारले नै संवैधानिक संकट निम्त्याइसकेपछि अहिले आपत् परेझैं गरेर अध्यादेश जारी गर्न हुँदैन ।’ अध्यादेशबाट बजेट ल्याउन अहिले कुनै आपत्कालीन अवस्था नरहेको उनको भनाइ छ । अध्यादेश संसद् नभएको अवस्थामा आपत्कालीन प्रयोजनका लागि ल्याउने अभ्यास हो । खनालले भनेझैं आगामी असार मसान्तसम्म गत आर्थिक वर्षमै संसद्ले पास गरेका बजेटसँग सम्बन्धित कानुनहरूले राजस्व र खर्च गर्न सरकारलाई कुनै बाधा परेको छैन । ‘संविधान उल्लंघन गर्दै प्रतिनिधिसभाको विघटन गरिसकेपछि संविधानको पालना गर्न जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउँछौं भनेर गाईजात्रा देखाउनु हुँदैन,’ खनालले भने ।

संविधान जारी भएपछिका पाँच आर्थिक वर्ष (२०७३/७४ देखि २०७७/७८ सम्म) का बजेट संसद्मै पेस भई नयाँ आर्थिक वर्षअगावै पास भएर कार्यान्वयनमा आएका हुन् । नयाँ संविधानअनुसार अहिले पहिलो पटक बजेट राजनीतिक सिकार भएको छ । राष्ट्रपति र प्रधानमन्त्रीको कदमविरुद्ध कानुनी लडाइँ लड्ने भन्दै प्रतिपक्ष गठनबन्धनका १४९ सांसदले सर्वोच्चमा रिट दायर गर्ने भएका छन् । सर्वोच्चले जेठ १५ अगावै निर्णय गरी प्रतिनिधिसभा ब्युँताए बजेट संसद्मै पेस गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । सर्वोच्चको निर्णयमा ढिलाइ वा प्रतिनिधिसभा नब्युँतिएको अवस्थामा के गर्ने भन्ने अन्योल भने कायमै रहने देखिन्छ ।

‘यस्तो परिस्थितिमा अध्यादेशबाट जसरी पनि जेठ १५ मै बजेट ल्याउनुपर्छ जस्तो लाग्दैन,’ संविधानको आर्थिक कार्य प्रणालीका मस्यौदाकार शंकर शर्मा भन्छन्, ‘यसलाई कानुन तथा संविधानविद्हरूबाट थप व्याख्या आवश्यक परेको छ ।’ यसका लागि शुक्रबार राष्ट्रपति तथा प्रधानमन्त्रीको कदमविरुद्ध पर्ने मुद्दा र निर्णय नभएसम्मका लागि सरकारले हतार गर्न नहुने विज्ञहरूको धारणा छ ।

संसद् नब्युँतने र यो चुनावी सरकार भइरहे नियमित कार्यक्रमहरू मात्रै समावेश गरेर अध्यादेशमार्फत बजेट सार्वजनिक गर्नुपर्ने पूर्वअर्थ सचिव शान्तराज सुवेदीको धारणा छ । त्यसका लागि सरकारलाई पछिल्लो उदाहरण खिलराज रेग्मी सरकारका अर्थमन्त्री शंकर कोइरालाले ल्याएको बजेट हो । ‘प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन र चुनाव घोषणा भएको अवस्थाले यो कामचलाउ सरकार हो । त्यसकारण यसले नयाँ र लोकप्रिय कार्यक्रमसहित बजेट ल्याउन पाउँदैन,’ खिलराज रेग्मी सरकारका पालाका अर्थ सचिव सुवेदी भन्छन्, ‘सामाजिक सुरक्षा भत्ता, तलब वृद्धिका काम त गर्नै हुँदैन । जसले मुलुकलाई दीर्घकालीन दायित्व थप्ने काम गर्छ ।’

नयाँ कार्यक्रम, तलब भत्ता वृद्धिसम्बन्धी दीर्घकालीन दायित्व सिर्जना गर्ने कार्यक्रमबारेको निर्णय नयाँ जनमतबाट म्यान्डेड प्राप्त सरकारलाई छाडिदिनुपर्ने उनको धारणा छ । ‘त्यसकारण चुनावलाई ध्यानमा राखेर, आफैंले जसरी पनि चुनाव जित्नुपर्छ भन्ने हिसाबले बजेट ल्याइनु हुँदैन,’ सुवेदी भन्छन्, ‘पुराना कार्यक्रमलाई निरन्तरता, तोकिएको नयाँ निर्वाचन, आउँदो वर्ष हुने स्थानीय तहको निर्वाचन र महामारी नियन्त्रणमा मात्रै केन्द्रित भएर बजेट ल्याउनुपर्छ ।’