Category: Quotes

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https%3A%2F%2Fbipinadhikari.com.np%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F01%2FModel-constitution-news.pdf” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=1360px fullscreen=true download=true print=true]

(To many, arguments based on interpretations of the constitution alone are not the solution. Advocate Bipin Adhikari says the only alternative the parties have at their disposal to avert the impending crisis is to go for a ‘framework constitution’, which contains the basic provisions agreed by all parties in the CA–should a “complete constitution” not come out on time. “This issue is more political than legal,” says Adhikari. Proponents of this idea maintain that since there are only three more concept papers to be submitted, the parties can easily adopt a “framework constitution” within the remaining time and continue to build on it later. There is no point, says Adhikari, in trying to find out ‘excuses’ for unconstitutional adventurism through “meticulous legal interpretation.”)

Kathmandu: Constitution expert Dr Bipin Adhikari on Friday said some of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, had not been implemented in reality.

Addressing a programme on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy jointly organised by the Patan Appellate Court Bar Association and the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights-Nepal in the capital, Dr Adhikari said such rights could be termed fundamental rights only if there were laws promulgated for their implementation. He said Right to Health, Right to Employment, Right to Social Security, Right to Food and Right Against Exploitation were not fundamental rights just because they were mentioned in the constitution.

“People die due to lack of food. Is right to food a fundamental right for such people,” he wondered. — HNS

Kathmandu, Constitution expert Dr Bipin Adhikari on Friday said some of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, had not been implemented in reality.

Addressing a programme on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy jointly organised by the Patan Appellate Court Bar Association and the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights-Nepal in the capital, Dr Adhikary said such rights could be termed fundamental rights only if there were laws promulgated for their implementation.

He said Right to Health, Right to Employment, Right to Social Security, Right to Food and Right Against Exploitation were not fundamental rights just because they were mentioned in the Constitution.

“People die due to lack of food. Is right to food a fundamental right for such people,” he wondered. — HNS

Published: July 25, 2009 6:26 am On: Kathmandu

 [pdfjs-viewer url=”https%3A%2F%2Fbipinadhikari.com.np%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F01%2FA-Model-Question.pdf” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=1360px fullscreen=true download=true print=true]

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https%3A%2F%2Fbipinadhikari.com.np%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F01%2FSlogan-of-constitution-maki8ng.pdf” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=1360px fullscreen=true download=true print=true]

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https%3A%2F%2Fbipinadhikari.com.np%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F01%2FDeclaration-of-Republic.pdf” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=1360px fullscreen=true download=true print=true]

काठमाडौं । संविधानविद विपिन अधिकारीले संविधानको धारा ७६(५) लाई उल्लेख गर्दै सर्वोच्च अदालतले सुनाएको फैसलाको गलत व्याख्या भइरहेको टिप्पणी गरेका छन् । सर्वोच्चले संसदलाई ह्वीप नलाग्ने भनेर फैसला नगरेको उनको कथन छ ।

काठमाडौंमा आज आयोजित ज्ञान गोष्ठी संवाद श्रृंखलामा बोल्दै संविधानविद अधिकारीले दलको ह्वीप लागेन भने संसद पनि नचल्ने र संसदीय व्यवस्था पनि नटिक्ने उल्लेख गरे ।

उनले भने, ‘अदालतले सांसदहरुलाई दलको ह्वीप लाग्दैन भन्यो भने त्यो अदालत हुनै सक्दैन । अदालतले राजनीतिक दलसम्वन्धी कानून हेर्दैन र ?’ देउवालाई समर्थन गरेर केही एमालेका सांसदहरु राष्ट्रपति समक्ष गएका बेला पार्टीले ह्वीप जारी नगरेको अधिकारीको भनाइ छ ।

‘तर अदालतले ह्वीप लाग्दैन भन्यो भन्दै पण्डितहरु निस्किए’ उनले भने, ‘सांसदहरुलाई दलको ह्वीप लाग्दैन भन्नु हाँस्यास्पद हो, अदालतले भनेको कुरालाई आफ्नो सुविधाअनुसार व्याख्या गर्नु हुन्न ।’