Category: Quotes

काठमाडौं । काठमाडौं विश्वविद्यालय, स्कूल अफ ल का डीन डा. विपिन अधिकारीले आउँदो चैत ३० गतेबाट लागु हुने गरी बुधबार पदबाट राजीनामा दिएका छन् ।

डा. विपिन अधिकारी स्कूल अफ ल का संस्थापक डीन हुन् । उनले काठमाडांै विश्वविद्यालय अन्तर्गत व्यवस्थापन तथा अर्थशास्त्रलाई एकीकृत गरी कानुनको पाँच वर्षे स्नातक अध्ययन कार्यक्रम तथा अनुसन्धानमा आधारित उर्जा तथा पूर्वाधार विकास कानुन सम्बन्धी स्नातकोत्तर कार्यक्रमहरु सञ्चालनमा ल्याएका थिए ।

नेपालको आर्थिक विकास, राष्ट्रिय तथा अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय लगानी, व्यापार व्यवसाय तथा सांगठनिक क्षेत्र (कर्पोरेट सेक्टर) सँग सम्बन्धित यी विषयहरुले मुलुकको विकास तथा निर्माणको वर्तमान आवश्यकता पूरा गर्ने कानुनी जनशक्ति निर्माण गर्ने उद्देश्य राखेको छ । यी सबै कार्यक्रमहरु सफल मानिन्छन् ।

अधिकारी डीनको रुपमा छैठौं वर्षमा कार्यरत थिए तथा नयाँ नेतृत्व चयनका लागि उनले सहजीकरण गर्न चाहेको बताइन्छ । डीन डा. अधिकारीसँग कुराकानी गर्न खोज्दा उनीसँग फोनमा सम्पर्क हुन सकेन ।

KATHMANDU: The Tuesday meeting of the Council of Ministers has decided to put a ban on activities of Netra Bikram Chand led Nepal Communist Party.

Stating that the Chand-led NCP is a criminal outfit involved in violation of people’s right to security and that it has infrastructural damages, extortion, among other illegal activities to its credit- the government is set to declare an all-out ban on the party, at once.

According to a Minister in the Oli Cabinet, the government intends to control activities of such outfits which could in time, if left untreated, lead to emergence of larger problems thereby jeopardising democracy.

The group in recent times had planted Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) on two separate occasions in the capital. One person lost his life in an IED explosion in February, while two others were injured in the same incident.

Next, they targeted the private residence of Rohan Gurung, the chairman of Nepal Association of Foreign Employment Agencies (NAFEA).

THT Online asked Constitutional Law Expert Bipin Adhikari regarding constitutional provisions on such steps, to which he responded, “Ban on criminal activities is a normal criminal justice process. Failure to ban on such activities carried out by criminal outfit would be a violation of criminal law instead.”

The Chand-led group has time and again ignored the government’s call for dialogue.

फागुन २७, २०७५ काठमाडौं– नेपाल सरकार र स्वतन्त्र मधेश गठबन्धनबीच गत शुक्रवार ११ बुँदे सहमति भएपछि सीके राउतबाट पुनः विखण्डनकारी गतिविधि नहुने अपेक्षा राखिएको थियो । तर आइतबार काठमाडौंबाट जनकपुर फर्केका राउतको स्वागतमा स्वतन्त्र मधेशको पक्षमा नाराबाजी भयो । सहमतिको बुँदा नम्बर एकमा ‘नेपाल स्वतन्त्र, स्वाधीन, सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न, अविभाज्य राष्ट्र हो र नेपालको अखण्डताको रक्षा गर्नु प्रत्येक नेपालीको कर्तव्य हो’ भनेर उल्लेख गरिएको छ । राउत र उनका समर्थकहरूले स्वतन्त्र मधेशको नारा लगाएर सहमतिको पहिलो बुँदा नै तोडेका छन् ।

सहमतिको ६ नम्बर बुँदामा ‘स्वतन्त्र मधेश गठबन्धनका नेता कार्यकर्ताले तयार गरेका प्रचार सामग्रीलाई आधार बनाएर कारवाही नगर्ने तर सहमति लागू भइसकेपछि त्यस्ता प्रचार सामग्रीहरू उत्पादन गर्न र वितरण गर्न नपाइने’ उल्लेख छ । तर आइतवार जनकपुरमा सहमति विपरीतका र पुरानै प्रचार सामग्रीहरू सहित राउतका समर्थकले नाराबाजी गरे । सहमतिको मसी सुक्न नपाउँदै एउटा पक्षले सहमति तोडिसकेकोमा दुईमत रहेन ।

उसो त सरकार र स्वतन्त्र मधेश गठबन्धनका संयोजक राउतबीच भएको सहमतिको कुनै कानूनी र संवैधानिक धरातल नभएको कानूनविद्हरूले टिप्पणी छ । लोकान्तरसँग कुरा गर्दै मानवअधिकारवादी नेताले ‘सरकारले अपराध गरेको’ टिप्पणी गरे भने संविधानविद् भीमार्जुन आचार्यले उक्त ११ बुँदे सहमतिलाई संविधान र कानूनले नचिनेको बताए । त्यस्तै संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारीले पृथकतावादी आन्दोलनमा होमिएकाहरूलाई राजनीतिक मूलधारमा ल्याउन सरकारले गरेको प्रयास स्वागतयोग्य भएपनि एक पक्षबाट सहमति तोडिनु दु:खद् भएको टिप्पणी गरे।

संविधानको घेराभित्र स्वतन्त्र मधेशको नारा

नेपालको संविधान, २०७२ को भाग १ को धारा ५ भन्छ, ‘नेपालको स्वतन्त्रता, सार्वभौमसत्ता, भौगोलिक अखण्डता, राष्ट्रियता, स्वाधीनता, स्वाभिमान, नेपालीको हकहितको रक्षा, सिमानाको सुरक्षा, आर्थिक समुन्नति र समृद्धि नेपालको राष्ट्रिय हितका आधारभूत विषय हुनेछन् ।’

धारा ५ कै उपधारा २ मा भनिएको छ- ‘राष्ट्रहित प्रतिकूलको आचरण र कार्यसंघीय कानूनबमोजिम दण्डनीय हुनेछन् ।’

राउतसँग गरिएको सहमतिमा उल्लेख गरिएका बुँदा सैद्धान्तिक रूपमा संविधानसँग नबाझिएको भएतापनि व्यावहारिक रूपमा प्रष्ट छैनन् । यसबाट प्रश्न उठेको छ, के संविधानको सैद्धान्तिक व्याख्याले मात्र देशको हित प्रतिकूल हुने कार्यहरू रोक्न सम्भव छ ? के स्वतन्त्र मधेश गठबन्धनकै नाममा क्रियाकलाप गर्न छुट दिनु भनेको राजनीतिक मूलधारमा ल्याउनु हो ?

संविधानविद् आचार्य शंका गर्छन्, ‘सरकारले कसको निर्देशनमा यस किसिमको सहमति गर्ने आँट गर्‍यो ? सरकार कहीँ कतैबाट परिचालित त छैन ?’

यसअघि स्वतन्त्र मधेश गठबन्धनलाई खुलेआम देश टुक्र्याउने नारा लगाउने छुट थिएन । राज्यविप्लवको आरोपमा प्रहरी प्रशासनले अवरोध गर्थ्यो, नेता कार्यकर्ता गिरफ्तार गर्थ्यो । तर आइतवार पृथकतावादीहरूले प्रहरीको सुरक्षा घेराभित्रै रहेर स्वतन्त्र मधेशको नारा घन्काए । सरकारसँग गरेको ११ बुँदे सहमतिको आडमा जनमतसंग्रहको माग गरे । जबकि देशको कुनै एक भू-भाग छुट्याएर अलग्गै देश बनाउनका लागि माग गरिने जनमतसंग्रह संविधान प्रतिकूल छ ।

पछिल्लो समय पाँच महिनाभन्दा बढी जेलमा बसेका पृथकतावादी राउतसँग सरकारले निरन्तर वार्ता गरिरहेको तथ्य खुल्यो । वार्तामा राउत पक्ष र सरकार पक्षीय अधिकारीबीच निरन्तर सम्पर्क र सूचना आदान प्रदान भयो । सत्तारुढ दलकै नेताका अनुसार पृथकतावादी अभियानलाई सरकारले राजनीतिक मूलधारमा ल्याउने प्रयास गरेको थियो ।

मधेश मामिलाका जानकार राजेश अहिराज भन्छन्, ‘सरकारले पृथकतावादी अभियान चलाइरहेका विभिन्न समूहसँग गरेको यो १९औं सहमति हो । यसअघि पनि ज्वाला समूह, गोइत समूहजस्ता दर्जन भन्दा बढी समूहसँग सरकारले वार्ता र सहमति गरिसकेको छ ।’

तर सरकारले यसअघि गरेका अधिकांश सहमतिहरू तोडिएका छैनन् । सहमति तोड्न खोज्ने समूहलाई सरकारले कानूनी उपचारको माध्यमबाट पृथकतावादी अभियानलाई निष्प्रभावी पार्ने प्रयास गरेको थियो र केही हदसम्म सरकारको उक्त काम सफल रह्यो । तर राउतसँग गरिएको सहमतिको ४८ घण्टा नबित्दै राउतले नै तोडेका छन् ।

फागुन २६, २०७५ काठमाडौं – ‘मधेशमाथि नेपालको उपनिवेश’ अन्त्य हुनुपर्ने र मधेशलाई नेपालबाट अलग्याएर छुट्टै देश बनाउने पृथकतावादी अभियानमा लागेका डाक्टर चन्द्रकान्त राउत (सीके राउत) सँग सरकारले गरेको ११ बुँदे सहमतिको पक्ष र विपक्षमा देशको राजनीति विभाजित भएको छ ।

सत्तापक्षीय नेताहरूले विखण्डनको आन्दोलनमा लागेका राउतलाई मूलधारको राजनीतिमा ल्याउनु सरकारको महत्त्वपूर्ण सफलता भएको भन्ने टिप्पणी गरिरहेका छन् भने प्रतिपक्षी, कतिपय संविधानविद् र राजनीतिक विश्लेषकहरूले सम्झौताप्रति शंका व्यक्त गरिरहेका छन् ।

सम्झौतालगत्तै सबैतिरबाट स्वागतका स्वरहरू सुनिएता पनि सहमतिको मसी सुक्न नपाउँदै राउतको पुरानो रवैया परिवर्तन नभएको र राष्ट्रिय अखण्डताविरुद्ध स्वतन्त्र मधेशको माग नछाडेको देखिएकाले राउतसँगै गृहमन्त्रीले हस्ताक्षर गरेको ११ बुँदे सम्झौता थप विवादित बनेको हो ।

सहमतिमा उल्लेख नै नगरिएको ‘जनमतसंग्रह’ शब्दावलीलाई राउतका समर्थक र कार्यकर्ताहरूले गलत प्रयोग गरेर शनिवार मधेशका जिल्लाहरूमा दीपप्रज्वलन गरेका तस्वीरहरू सामाजिक सञ्जालमा सार्वजनिक भएका छन् । स्वयं राउतकै फेसबूक र ट्वीटरबाट आएका सहमति विपरीतका अभिव्यक्तिहरूले राउतमाथि शंका व्यक्त गर्ने ठाउँ छोडेका छन् । सरकारले राउतसँगको सहमति जसरी उपलब्धिमूलक भनेर प्रचार गरेको थियो, त्यो नभएको बरू राउतले सरकारले दिएको मञ्चलाई रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरेको जस्तो देखिएको छ ।

सरकारले अपराध गर्‍यो : मानवअधिकारकर्मी कृष्ण पहाडी

वरिष्ठ मानवअधिकारकर्मी कृष्ण पहाडीले सरकारको यो कदम ‘अपराधजन्य कदम’ भएको टिप्पणी गरेका छन् । ‘यदि राउतले पृथकतावादी अभियान छाडेको हो भने मात्र स्वागतयोग्य हो,’ आइतवार लोकान्तरसँग कुरा गर्दै पहाडीले भने, ‘यही ११ बुँदेको आड लिएर घृणा फैलाइरहने हो भने राउतलाई कानूनसम्मत कारवाही हुनुपर्छ । राउतले जनमतसंग्रह भनेर व्याख्या गरिरहेका छन्, तिनलाई यसो गर्ने धरातल कसले दियो ? यदि सरकारले दिएको हो भने यो सरकारले गरेको ठूलो अपराध हो ।’

‘अहिले भएको सहमतिको २ नम्बर बुँदालाई आधार बनाएर जनमत संग्रहलाई कानूनी मागको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्दै मधेसलाई छुट्टै देश बनाउने तयारी त भएको होइन ?’ पहाडीले प्रश्न गरे, ‘सीके राउतसँग गरेको भनिएको सहमति मन्त्रिपरिषद्, संसद् या अन्य सार्वभौम निकायबाट पारित गर्नुपर्छ कि नाईँ ?’

‘या त राउतले नै भन्नुपर्‍यो मैले पृथकतावादी अभियान छाडे भनेर,’ पहाडीको टिप्पणी छ, ‘यदि राउतले यसो भनेदेखि कुरा सकियो, उनले जय नेपाल भन्नुपर्‍यो । यदि उनले यसो भनेनन् भने अपराधजन्य सहमति गर्ने अधिकार यो सरकारलाई कसले दियो ? यदि राउतले विखण्डनकारी गतिविधि छाडेनन् भने अब त सरकार नै राज्यविरुद्धको अपराधी भयो नि !’

‘हिजो राउतमाथि राज्य विप्लवको मुद्दा थियो, अब त त्यो मुद्दा सरकारमाथि लाग्ने स्थिति आएको छ,’ पहाडीले आक्रोश पोखे, ‘सरकारलाई अमूर्त भाषामा सहमतिका बुँदाहरू लेख्ने अधिकार कसले दियो ?’

सरकारले दिएको मञ्चलाई राउतले रणनैतिकरूपमा प्रयोग मात्र गरे – संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी

संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारीले राउतले सरकारले दिएको मञ्च रणनैतिक रूपमा आफ्नो स्वार्थका लागि प्रयोग गर्न खोजेको आरोप लगाएका छन् ।

‘सरकारले राउतसँग सहमति नै गर्न नहुने भन्ने होइन, गर्न सक्छ र सरकारले अदालतलाई प्रभाव पारेको जस्तो पनि देखिएको छैन,’ अधिकारीले लोकान्तरसँग कुरा गर्दै भने, ‘तर जसलाई सरकारले यति धेरै विश्वासका साथ मञ्च दियो, ऊ चाहिँ तत्कालै मोडिएको छ, ऊ आफ्ना पुरानै एजेण्डामा फिर्ता भएको अवस्थामा सरकारले उसको मनासय जाँच नगरीकन सहमतिको प्रक्रियामा गएको हो कि भन्ने अनुमान लगाउन सकिन्छ ।’

राउतले प्रधानमन्त्री र नेकपाका अध्यक्ष प्रचण्डसँग शेयर गरेको मञ्चलाई रणनैतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरेको देखिएको अधिकारीको भनाइ छ ।

सरकारले गलत मनासय या अधिकार क्षेत्रबाहिर गएर यस्तो सहमति नगरेको अधिकारी तर्क गर्छन् । ‘कानूनका हिसाबले नेपाल सरकारले संविधानभन्दा बाहिर रहेका पक्षहरूलाई संवैधानिक दायराभित्र ल्याउनका लागि यस्तो किसिमको सहमति गर्ने र समेट्ने प्रयास गर्न सक्छ,’ अधिकारीले भने, ‘त्यो नेपाल सरकारको क्षमता भित्रको कुरा हो । सरकारको यो सहमति प्रक्रियाले सर्वोच्च अदालतको न्याय सम्पादनमाथि केही असर गरेको छैन ।’

‘सरकारले केही समयदेखि नै वार्ताको प्रक्रिया चलाइरहेको जस्तो देखिएको छ,’ अधिकारीले भने, ‘अदालतको प्रक्रियामा जेसुकै निर्णय गरेको भएतापनि नेपाल सरकारले संवैधानिक उद्देश्य प्राप्तिका लागि हो भने यस्ता सहमतिका प्रक्रियाहरू शुरू गर्न सक्छ र राउतलाई राजनीतिक मूलधारमा ल्याउन सक्छ ।’

सरकारले यस्तो काम अदालती प्रक्रियामा रहेको मात्र नभई अदालतबाट दोषी साबित नै भइसकेको अवस्थामा पनि गर्न सक्ने अधिकारीको तर्क छ । उनका अनुसार सरकारले आफ्नो कार्यकारिणी अधिकार प्रयोग गरेर जो कोहीलाई पनि माफीमुल्तवी गराउन सक्छ ।

‘पृथकतावादी अभियानमा लागेका राउतलाई सरकारले मेहेनत गरेर राजनीतिक मूलधारमा ल्याउन गरेको प्रयास सह्रानीय छ तर सहमतिको गलत व्याख्या हुन सक्छ भन्नेमा सरकारको कुनै तयारी देखिएन,’ अधिकारी तर्क गर्छन्, ‘सहमतिको दूरासययुक्त व्याख्या सार्वजनिक भएको छ । नेपाल सरकारले गरेको सहमतिमा जनमतसंग्रह नै गर्ने भन्ने अर्थ लाग्दैन, संविधानतः जनमतसंग्रह गराउनुपर्ने हो भने सिधै ‘जनमतसंग्रह’नै उल्लेख गरेको भए भइहाल्थ्यो । तर जुन मान्छेसँग एउटा विश्वास कायम गरेर सरकारले सहमति गरेको छ, उनी यति निम्छरो देखिएलान् भन्ने बारेमा सरकार सरकारले पूर्वानुमान गर्न किन सकेन ?’

सरकार शतप्रतिशत चुक्यो – संविधानविद् भीमार्जुन आचार्य

सीके राउतसँग सरकारले ११ बुँदे सहमति गरेर सरकार शतप्रतिशत चुकेको टिप्पणी गर्छन्, संविधानविद् भीमार्जुन आचार्य । आइतवार लोकान्तरसँग कुरा गर्दै आचार्यले सरकारले आफ्नो संवैधानिक सीमा मिचेको आरोप लगाए । ‘सरकार शतप्रतिशत चुक्यो, पूरै चुक्यो,’ आचार्यले भने, ‘एक त सरकारलाई त्यस्ता समूहसँग वार्ता र सहमति गर्ने अधिकार हुँदैन । सरकारले आफ्नो संवैधानिक सीमा पनि देखेन । संवैधानिक सीमाभन्दा बाहिर गएर सरकारले काम गरेको छ ।’

संविधान र कानून नमान्ने व्याक्ति या समूहले राज्यसँग ‘सरेन्डर’ गर्‍यो भने मात्र उसलाई क्षमा दिन सकिने आचार्यको तर्क छ । उसलाई राज्यकै हैसियत दिएर सहमति र सम्झौतामा हस्ताक्षर गर्ने भन्ने कुरा त पागलपन रहेको आचार्य बताउँछन् । उनी भन्छन्, ‘कानून र संविधानको परिभाषामा सीके राउतसँग भएको सहमतिको मूल्य शून्य बराबर छ ।’

‘राउतलाई अदालतले तारिखमा रिहा गरेलगत्तै जसरी सहमतिका नाममा घटनाक्रम घटे, यसले न्यायालयलाई सरकारले प्रभाव पारेको जस्तो देखिन्छ,’ आचार्यको तर्क छ, ‘राउतको मुद्दा अन्तिम भएको छैन भन्ने सुन्नमा आएको छ । गम्भीर र देशद्रोहको मुद्दा लागेर अदालतमा विचाराधीन रहेको अवस्थामा सरकारले सहमति र सम्झौता गर्ने भन्ने कुरा कल्पनै गर्न सकिँदैन । गम्भीर प्रश्न के आयो भने सरकार कोबाट सञ्चालित छ कसका लागि यो काम गर्दै छ भन्ने नै थाहा छैन ।’

आचार्यका अनुसार राउतलाई राजनीतिक मूलधारमा ल्याएको जस्तो देखाएर मधेशमा दीर्घकालीन रूपमा एउटा शक्तिको विकास गर्ने र मधेशलाई काश्मीर बनाउने एजेण्डामा काम भइरहेको जस्तो देखिन्छ । सरकार राष्ट्रिय अखण्डताको पक्षमा उभिनुपर्नेमा विखण्डनकारीको पक्षमा उभिएको जस्तो देखिएको आरोप आचार्य लगाउँछन् ।

राउतले व्यावहारिक रूपमा सहमति पालना गरेर देखाइदिनुपर्छ – डाक्टर राजेश अहिराज

मधेश मामिलाका जानकार डाक्टर राजेश अहिराज भने राउतलाई ‘बेनिफिट अफ डाउट’ दिनुपर्ने तर्क गर्छन् ।

‘मेरो विचारमा राज्यसँग राउतले गरेको सहमतिमा जति धेरै शंका, आरोप, अनिश्चितताका सवालहरू बाहिर आएका छन्, ती कुराहरूलाई विश्वासमा रुपान्तरण गर्ने जिम्मेवारी सहमतिमा हस्ताक्षरकर्ता दुई पक्ष, राज्य र सीके राउत स्वयंको हो,’ अहिराजले लोकान्तरसँग भने, ‘सैद्धान्तिक सहमतिलाई व्यवहारबाट पुष्टि गरेर देखाइदिनुपर्छ, राउतले ।

अहिराजका अनुसार मधेशमा राउतभन्दा बढी राउतका समर्थकहरू कडा रूपमा प्रस्तुत भइरहेको अवस्था छ, अहिले । ‘मधेश छुट्टै देश हो तर नेपालले कब्जा गरेर राखेको हो भन्ने धारणा बोकेर बसेका धेरै युवा छन्,’ अहिराज भन्छन्, ‘अब राउतले आफू त अवतरण गरे, उनीहरूलाई पनि बिस्तारै डाउन गर्न समय त दिनुपर्‍यो नि !’

अहिराज भन्छन्, ‘यो मुलुकमा द्वन्द्व रहिरहोस्, सीके राउतहरू बाहिर बसिरहुन्, मधेसी दलहरूले त्यसलाई छेकिरहुन्, एनजीओ/आईएनजीओले नेपालमा पृथकतावादी आन्दोलन छ भनेर डलर खाइरहुन्, मधेशका बौद्धिकहरूले प्रपोजल लेखेर विदेशीलाई दिइरहुन् भन्ने चाहना राख्ने हो भने सीके राउतले सरकारसँग गरेको सहमतिलाई गलत भनेर प्रचार गर्न पाइयो ।’

राउतसँग सरकारले गरेको सम्झौता कुनै नयाँ प्रकारको सम्झौता नभएको अहिराजको तर्क छ । ‘नेपालमा २०१५ सालदेखि फ्री मधेश को मुभमेन्ट शुरू भएको छ,’ अहिराज भन्छन्, ‘२०४० सालमा आएर ‘परतन्त्र मधेश और उसकी संस्कृति’ भन्ने एउटा पुस्तक नै प्रकाशित भएको छ । २०६२ सालपछि नेपालको उपनिवेशबाट मुक्ति चाहियो भनेर २५ भन्दा बढी सशस्त्र समूहले संघर्ष गरेका थिए र उनीहरूसँग नेपाल सरकारले १८ वटा सम्झौता गरेको छ । राउतसँग सरकारले गरेको पछिल्लो सहमति १९ औं सहमति हो ।’

उनले थपे- ‘तमाम कमी कमजोरीका बावजूद पनि सीके राउत राज्यको मूलधारको राजनीतिमा आएका छन्, विखण्डनको माग छोड्न तयार भएका छन् भन्ने हिसाबबाट सोच्ने हो भने सहमतिलाई सकारात्मक दृष्टिकोणबाट हेर्न सकिन्छ । थोरै माया, थोरै स्नेह र थोरै विश्वास दिएर जाने हो भने राउतको मुद्दालाई राज्यले आरामसँग सम्हाल्न सक्छ ।’

The decision by the Nepal government to expand the distribution of biometric national identity cards throughout the country is drawing criticism from advocacy groups, privacy experts, and legislators, The Kathmandu Post reports.

Last month Nepal’s Ministry of Home Affairs quietly scrapped the original plan to gradually roll out distribution of the digital identity cards, supplied by IDEMIA and supported by the Asian Development Bank, and decided to expand distribution country wide at once.

Bipin Adhikari, a dean at the Kathmandu University School of Law and constitutional law expert, said that despite constitutional protections, privacy is an alien concept in the country, and that it is likely the state will handle sensitive data recklessly. The government reportedly did not conduct security tests or provide guidelines to employees prior to the trial, and security researcher Ashim Mahara of Nepali company Vairav Technology says the government has a history of inadequate information security.

Regular reports of data breaches from India’s Aadhaar system have only increased concerns.

“Moving to digital ID cards is inevitable, but what we need to be concerned about is where these biometric data are being stored, who has access to these private data and how long is the state going to retain them?” Nepali digital gender advocacy group Body & Data Co-founder Shubha Kayastha told the Post.

“I strongly feel we need to have more discussion on what measures, especially given our lack of expertise and experience in data security, will be used to ensure the confidentiality of our citizens’ data,” says Rekha Sharma, a lawmaker and former minister for the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

The National Identity Card and Civil Registration bill which changes the proposed roll-out was brought before parliament in January, and also requires extensive personal information including residence and marriage history and grandparents’ names. The process is to be carried out by the newly created Department of National ID and Civil Registration, which experts say creates two parallel bodies and concerns about oversight and potential for wasted resources.

The country’s Election Commission began collecting biometric information in 2008 to curb voting fraud, but that data has not been stored as planned, leading to problems.

“We had to compress several of the biometric data because of limited storage infrastructure and this might have compromised the quality of the fingerprints which aren’t available in the original high-resolution format anymore,” said Election Commision Under-Secretary Surya Prasad Aryal.

काठमाडौं। सांसद पदको सपथ लिएको २ महिना कट्न पाउँदा नपाउँदै शुरु अदालत जिल्ला अदालतले रेशम चौधरीलाई जन्मकैदको सजाय सुनाइदिएपछि उनको दल राजपा रनाहमा परेको छ। त्यही रनाहमा राजपाले अध्यक्षगणको आकश्मिक बैठक डाकेर सरकारलाई दिएको समर्थन एकाएक फिर्ता लिने निर्णय गरेको छ।

रेशम चौधरीलाई कैलाली जिल्ला अदालतले जन्मकैद सजाय तोक्नुमा सरकारको हात देख्नु राजपाको दृष्टि दोष हो। सायद सरकारले न्यायालयलाई हस्तक्षेप गरेर रेशमको पक्षमा फैसला गराउनु पर्ने उसको मनशाय थियो।

नत्र राजपाले एक्कासी सरकारलाई दिएको समर्थन फिर्ता लिनु पर्ने कुनै कारण देखिँदैन। सरकारलाई दिएको समर्थन फिर्ता लिने मौकाको प्रतिक्षामा मात्रै राजपा थियो भने त्यो अलग कुरा हो। तर राजपाले बुझ्न नसकेको र भन्न नचाहेको विषय फरक छ।

त्यो हो, रेशममाथि लागेको अभियोगको प्रकृति र अदालतको व्याख्या हेर्दा उनलाई सर्वश्व सहित जन्मकैद सम्मको सजाय हुनसक्थ्यो। अहिले उनले पाएको सजाय भनेको जन्मकैदको मात्रै हो। जिल्ला अदालतले ज्यान सम्बन्धी महलको १३(३) नम्बर बमोजिको सजाय भनेको छ।

आम साधारणको आँखाबाट हेर्दा कैलाली जिल्ला अदालतका न्यायाधिस परशुराम भट्टराईको एकल इजलासले बोल्ड निर्णय गरेको छ। फाष्ट ट्य्राकबाटै। कारण, राजपाको करकाप र दुई तिहाइ सरकारका प्रधानमन्त्री केपी ओलीको निर्देशनमा संघीय संसदका समाभुख कृष्ण बहादुर महराले सीधै न्यायिक हिरासतबाट सुरक्षा सहित झिकाएर रेशमलाई सपथ गराएका थिए।

टीकापुर हत्याकाण्डको बहस मंगलबार मात्रै सकिएको थियो। फैसलाको पूर्ण पाठ भोलीपल्टै सार्वजनिक भयो। फैसालमा रेशमलाई जन्मकैद भएको छ। तर २०७२ भदौ ७ गते टीकापुरमा भएको घटनाको प्रकृति ज्यान सम्बन्धी महलको १३(१) सँग पनि मिल्दो जुल्दो छ।

तर, कानुनका जानकारहरुका अनुसार रेशममाथिको सजाय स्वभाविक छ। यसमा न्यायाधिशको तजबिजी अधिकार प्रयोग हुँदैन। जे जस्तो घटना भएको छ र कानुनले के प्राबधान राखेर सजाय तोक्छ त्यही अनुसार सजाय हुने संबिधानविद डा. चन्द्रमणि अधिकारीको तर्क छ। अर्का संबिधानविद डा. विपिन अधिकारीको तर्क पनि अधिकारीको तर्कसँग मिल्दो जुल्दो छ। सर्वश्वसहित जन्मकैदले पारिवारिकदेखि समाजिक अवस्थामा समेत सीधै असर पार्छ। साथै यसमा अपराधको डिग्री अनुसारको सजाय हुने उनको भनाइ छ।

अब रेशमको सांसद पद रहन्छ कि जान्छ त ?
रेशम चौधरीमाथि जन्मकैदको सजाय हुनसाथ कतिपय संचार माध्यमले उनको सांसद पद स्वतः खारेज हुने समाचार संप्रेषण गरे। तर संबिधानविदहरु यसमा सहमत छैनन्। संबिधानविद डा. विपिन अधिकारी भन्छन्, “खासमा रेशम चौधरीमाथि लागेको अभियोगको प्रकृति हेर्दा उनी संघीय संसदको सदस्यका लागि उम्मेदवार समेत बन्न पाउने थिएनन्। कसैले उजुरबाजुर गरेनन्। उनले त चुनावै जिते।

चुनाव जितेपछि पनि हिरासतमा राखिएका चौधरीलाई राजनीति दबाव र आड भरोसामा सांसद पदको सपथ नै खुवाइयो, जुन सरासर अबैधानिक थियो, राजनीतक बलमिच्याइँ”। उनले अगाडि थपे, “उनलाई सांसद पदको सपथ गराइएको विषयमा समेत कसैले अदालतमा चुनौति दिएन।

यो अर्थमा उनी सांसद भए। सांसद छन्। सांसदको लोगो लगाएरै उनी न्यायिक हिरासतमा छन्”। उनले थपे, यो शुरु अदालतको फैसला हो। उनले पुनरावेदनमा अपिल गर्न सक्ने र सर्वोच्चसम्म जाने बाटो खुलै छ। त्यसकारण तत्कालका लागि रेशमको सांसद पद गइहाल्छ भन्ने विषय भनिहाल्न सक्ने अबस्था देखिएन”।

संबिधानको धारा ८७ ले सांसद हुनका लागि योग्यता तोकेको छ। जहाँ, रेशममाथि लागेको अभियोग नैतिक पतन हुने फौजदारी अभियोगको प्रावधान राखिएको छ। संबिधानविद डा चन्द्रकान्त ज्ञवाली भन्छन् “१० वर्षभन्दा बढी सजाय सुनाइएका कुनै पनि अभियुक्तलाई सर्वोच्चसम्म जाने बाटो खुला छ।

कानुनले यही भनेका कारण उनीमाथि लागेको अभियोगको अन्तिम किनारा लागेको अबस्था होइन। अर्थात् पुनरावेदन र उनी त्यसपछि पनि सर्वोच्चसम्म गएमा, सर्वोच्चले समेत नैतिक पतन भएको र अपराधी ठहर नगरेसम्म उनको सांसद पद जाने अबस्था देखिँदैन, कानुनले यही भन्छ”।

संबिधानको धारा ८९ अनुसार सांसद पद रिक्त हुनका लागि धारा ८७ अनुसार योग्यता नपुगेको हुनुपर्छ। अर्थात् अन्तिम अदालतबाट अभियोग प्रमाणित हुनुपर्छ। त्यस्तै संसद नियमावली अनुसार सभामुखले सांसद पद खाली भएको जानकारी सभामुखले सदनलाई जानकारी दिनुपर्छ। तर सभामुखले नै रेशमलाई सपथ गराएपछि, आफुले सपथ गराएको विषयको वचाउ गर्दै आएका थिए। अझै अर्को कुरा यो विषय संबैधानिक इजलासमा पुग्न सक्छ।

त्यहाँबाट के हुन्छ, त्यो अनुमान गर्न पनि गाह्रो विषय हो। यतिधेरै गन्जागोलकावीच के रेशमको सांसद पद तत्काल गुम्ला ?

Nepal government’s attempt to push the digitised national identification cards without proper security checks could put citizens’ personal information at risk

The government’s recent decision to expand the distribution of national identity cards, which include personal and biometric data, in all the districts at the same time has alarmed digital security experts, and lawmakers. They say the government hasn’t sufficiently addressed the safety shortcomings regarding the access and storage of such a huge volume of sensitive personal data of nearly 30 million Nepalis.

Last November, the government began a pilot programme funded by the Asian Development Bank to distribute digital identification cards in Panchthar in eastern Nepal and for the Singha Durbar staff. This was in accordance with the government’s policy from 2009, which envisioned providing digital identity card, with a unique identification to all Nepali citizens. The plan was to then expand the identification card distribution to 15 districts first, then to another 25, and eventually across the country. But the Ministry of Home Affairs last month quietly scrapped the original plan and decided to expand the digital identity card distribution countrywide at once.

The decision came a month after the National Identity Card and Civil Registration bill was tabled in Parliament in January.

Technical efficiency to handle such a large volume of sensitive data aside, experts say the absence of the culture of respecting people’s privacy in Nepal could make things worse for Nepalis.

“Privacy is still an alien concept here, despite being guaranteed by the constitution, so there is a high possibility that the state could be reckless when dealing with such sensitive personal data of its citizens,” said Bipin Adhikari, dean at the Kathmandu University School of Law and an expert on constitutional law.

The government’s decision to move ahead with the identification card pilot programme in Panchthar and Singha Durbar without a security test–like guidelines for the government employees to access, and store such private data–has already set a dismal precedent regarding the handling of these sensitive data.

“We’ve not seen the government adequately address information security concerns in its past digital initiatives, so they need to do a complete information security check to ensure that such a massive volume of its citizens’ confidential data is stored and handled the right way,” said Ashim Mahara of Vairav Technology, a security research company in Nepal.

Experts also say Nepal needs to learn from the data breach in India’s Aadhar system— the world’s largest biometric database containing the personal information of more than one billion Indians, which gives Indians a unique identity number. They fear something similar could play out if Nepal isn’t prepared with a concrete plan to address security concerns.

“Moving to digital ID cards is inevitable, but what we need to be concerned about is where these biometric data are being stored, who has access to these private data and how long is the state going to retain them?” wondered Shubha Kayastha, co-founder of Body & Data which works in the intersection of gender, sexuality and digital technology in Nepal.

The current provisions in the bill demand not just biometric data, but also personal information about an individual–from parents’ and grandparents’ names to the number of times they’ve moved around the country to their marriage history–which experts say is already an infringement of individuals’ right to privacy.

“What if the person doesn’t want to be identified by his/her past or family association? Shouldn’t there be room to consider issues like this?” questioned Bipin Adhikari.

There are several unclear provisions in the bill which could slow down the implementation process.

The current provisions in the bill say that the District Administration Office, which has the jurisdiction to issue citizenship, will not have the jurisdiction to issue these national IDs. The newly created department of national ID and civil registration instead has been given this authority. This had led to the creation of two parallel bodies distributing similar documents. However, the supervisory jurisdiction to take action–if there is foul play in the data collection for these cards–lies with the District Administration Office, and this could make it difficult to keep check and balance.

“Given the long experience of chief district officers handling such identification cards, the creation of a parallel body just for the national identity card could lead to unnecessary waste of human and financial resources,” said Jivesh Jha, who teaches legal philosophy at Kathmandu University School of Law.

Prem Kumar Rai, secretary at the Home Ministry, refused to talk to the Post about the recent decision to expand the distribution of these ID cards across the country at once. He said it was the role of the ministry spokesperson to comment on the matter, but the spokesperson, Ram Krishna Subedi, didn’t respond to the Post’s calls and requests for an interview.

Last month when lawmakers raised concerns about the security aspect and unclear provisions in the proposed bill, officials from the Home Ministry tried to reassure them. They talked about putting in place multiple passwords to secure software used to collect people’s data, assured how they would take steps to ensure national security isn’t compromised and also explained how only the printing process would be done abroad, while performing the crucial task of entering the data in the country.

Rekha Sharma, former minister and lawmaker from the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP), who was among the parliamentarians questioning the security aspect of the bill, said she isn’t yet convinced by the ministry’s explanation.

“I strongly feel we need to have more discussion on what measures, especially given our lack of expertise and experience in data security, will be used to ensure the confidentiality of our citizens’ data,” said Sharma.

The government has defended the bill saying this would pave the way for a centralised database of all Nepalis, which would help it on various fronts like curbing crime and terrorism. But given Nepal’s past experience and failure to properly store or invest in software to create a similar web-based central database of biometric information, experts and government officials alike are sceptical.

In 2008, the Election Commission started collecting voter information with photos and fingerprints in order to curb fraudulent voting. Over a period of several years they were able to distribute voter ID cards with photos and also gather massive biometric data about the voters. However, in the absence of a budget to build a secure data centre, those data are now crammed into the Election Commission’s servers. Financial crunch has also prevented them from creating a centralised web-based database, which was the original plan. And now the useability of the data is also under threat.

“We had to compress several of the biometric data because of limited storage infrastructure and this might have compromised the quality of the fingerprints which aren’t available in the original high resolution format anymore,” said Surya Prasad Aryal, an under-secretary at the Election Commission.

A cybersecurity expert who has worked with private and government entities’ data security and spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity said the government’s lax attitude towards security of such sensitive data is extremely worrying.

“The government doesn’t have a runbook or guideline on how the data should be handled, stored and accessed securely by the authorities concerned,” said the expert. “I am now worried about the safety of my own data, which the state will have access to very soon.

[Published: 03-03-2019 08:16]

Provisions of the Acts that contradict constitution are invalid from tomorrow

The federal parliament has failed to meet the constitutional deadline to amend all the existing laws that are inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution.

Though the House revised over 150 laws which needed some minor changes, it has failed to amend some of the laws which required major changes.

Article 304 of the constitution says: Any law which is inconsistent with this constitution shall ipso facto be invalid to the extent of such inconsistency, after one year of the date on which the first session of the federal parliament set forth in this constitution is held.

As the first meeting of the federal parliament—which was elected as per the new constitution—was held on March 5 last year, the deadline to revise all the laws to bring them in conformity to the constitution ends on March 4.

The federal parliament on Saturday endorsed two amendment bills—Bill to amend some Nepal Acts and Bill to amend some Nepal Acts to Revise them in Line with the Constitution—which sought to make some lump sum changes in 56 and 109 Acts, respectively.

In a rare practice, a House of Representatives meeting was called on Saturday as the amendment Acts need to be authenticated by the President by Monday.

Since March 4 is a public holiday, Parliament should have amended the laws on Saturday to ensure their authentication in time. Hence, Parliament effectively failed to meet the constitutional deadline to amend some laws that are inconsistent with the constitution.

“The endorsement of the two amendment bills revising contradicting laws is in the spirit of constitution,” said Roj Nath Pandey, spokesperson for the Parliament Secretariat.

However, Parliament has failed to endorse bills on Sports Development, Amendment to Citizenship Act and Amendment to Lands Act, among others.

As per the constitution, the provisions in the existing Acts that contradict with the constitution will be invalid to the extent of their inconsistency Tuesday onwards.

For example, there are Sports Development Committees in the five development regions which were established based on existing Sports Development Act. In the lack of new Act, the existing regional committees will lose their legal grounds from Tuesday. “We had drafted a new bill, as existing Act needed massive changes, to make it consistent with the statute,” Ganesh Pandey, spokesperson for the Ministry of Youth and Sports told the Post.

The review by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs showed 174 Acts among 339, which were in effect before the promulgation of the statute, were inconsistent with the constitution, hence needed some minor to major changes.

“The Amendment to some Nepal Laws Acts can only make cosmetic revisions. The Acts which need major changes have to go through the revision one by one,” Bipin Adhikari, dean at Kathmandu University of Law and an expert on constitutional matters, told the Post.

While the government officials say the one-year deadline was for the amendment of Acts that contradict with the constitution, some legal experts maintained that the deadline was for drafting or revising all the Acts to ensure implementation of the constitution.

For instance federal and provincial Police Acts, a must to hire provincial police as per the spirit of the constitution, should have been ready by the deadline.

“The government and the federal parliament must take the responsibility for failing to work as per the spirit of the constitution,” said Tika Ram Bhattarai, former vice- chairman of the Nepal Bar Association.

Published: 03-03-2019 08:16

In contemporary world, the utility of database cannot be denied. The digital multi-layered data with photo and biometric has prospect of providing greater transparency. But, at the same time, it is imperative to ensure that the data collected is made available only to persons or institutions authorised by law for access and used only for the purpose for which the data was collected.

In this context, the government has recently tabled a bill related to provisions regarding the National Identity Certificate and Registration with an aim to provide a nationwide citizen registration. The national identity certificate will have personal data of family name, given name, address, father’s name, mother’s name, grandparents’ name, husband’s or wife’s name, profession and income details, photo and four fingerprints of both thumbs and two index fingers.

However, “If the proposed law, which seeks to provide national identity certificate to all the citizens or the persons qualified to be citizens, is not utilised with good intention, the blessing of unique (digital) identity card with photo and biometrics might become a bane,” said Dr Surya Nath Upadhyaya, former Chief Commissioner of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), in an interaction programme organised by Kathmandu University School of Law (KUSL) Dhulikhel on Sunday in Kathmandu. He further said that the complexities associated with the open border may create challenges in effective implementation of the laws relating to citizenships or national identity card.

He was of the view that the citizenship or national identity cards should be provided in digital form in the age we live in. “But the legal arrangements or national policies should serve our national interest and suit our normative structure. We should not endorse anything just because it has been adopted by foreign states.”

Seconding the view of Upadhyaya, Ram Sahaya Prasad Yadav, a Member of Parliament, said that the bill ought to have been introduced with prior deliberations. “The identification system is in practice in more than 100 countries. It’s the need of the day,” said he.

“But it must not be provided to non-Nepalis. The state should ensure that such practice is a step ahead in right direction for protecting the rights and not for encroaching on our privacy,” he said.

Still, “The proposed National Identification and Registration Bill, 2075 (BS) is an important initiative of the government. It aims to promote, establish and regulate the national identification system that facilitates the enrolment of all citizens and the verification of their biographical and biometric information, and among other things,” said Dr Bipin Adhikari, Dean of KUSL, Dhulikhel.

He further said that though the Bill is in the line with similar developments in other countries, “it is not clear why a national identification and registration department is being created at the Home Ministry when it comes to learn that the existing District Offices under the same Ministry are trained enough to do the job.”

He added, “The very District Administration offices should be shouldered with the responsibility to deal with all the registration works under the proposed legislation. The existing system of citizenship certificates could be expanded to fulfil the requirements of further identification and registration.”

Adhikari then went on to assert that “the proposed Bill, as it stands now, creates duplication and might give alternative opportunities to unqualified foreigners claiming citizenship certificates by unscrupulous means. This way, it will create a national hue and cry in long run.”

However, Dr Surya Dhungel, a senior advocate, opined that the bill has initiated with the distrust towards the provincial governments and that needs to be reconsidered. “The provincial governments have been offered minimal role to play. It appears that the bill has been brought in hurry,” said Dhungel.

He further said that the use of the words, like integrated national identity card or multi-purpose, in preamble is ambiguous in nature. Similarly, the bill ought to have provided the definition of the family. “The term ‘family’ has different meaning in different legal contexts,” he said.

Likewise, Devendra Jha, an advocate, said, “The state would be under an obligation to ensure the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality and security of data it collects.”

He further said that scores of Muslims from Pakistan or other Islamic states have taken citizenships in southern plains with the help of their known ones. “The national identity certificate should not be provided to them [illegal Muslim migrants]. It’s high time we learnt that their wider presence would pose threat to our national concerns,” added Jha.

Despite this, “The technology has become a vital tool for ensuring governance in a modern welfare state. However, the data compromised will always remain compromised and the bill contains nothing to curb misuse or abuse of data,” said Abhishek Adhikari, an advocate at the Supreme Court.

Appropriate privacy and data protection laws must be brought into force so that the data collected on Nepali citizens by the instrumentalities of the state must be protected and monitored against misuse or abuse. The digital identification would enable the government agencies to run subsidy or welfare schemes smoothly and provide a mechanism to check the veracity of persons claiming benefits under national or provincial schemes.

Yet, the ultimate end of the legislation should be to curb the distribution of citizenship or digital identification to non-Nepalis. After all, people entering Nepal are the people in Nepal, not the citizens of Nepal.

[Published on 25 February 2019]