Category: Quotes

The judiciary is deadlocked. Supreme Court justices and the legal fraternity have ganged up on Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana demanding his resignation. They argue that the judiciary’s image has been tarnished under his leadership and its reforms cannot begin without his resignation. However, Rana has refused to step down, leaving impeachment as the only option left to remove him. However, no party is ready to register an impeachment motion.

Amid the deadlock, the government has recommended ending the ongoing session of the federal parliament ending the prospect of impeachment anytime soon. Though the impeachment motion can be registered even when the House is not in session, it cannot move forward.

Amid the deepening crisis, the Post explains the process of judges and justice selection and the process of their removal.

How are judges and justices appointed?

The President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council appoints chief justice while other justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the head of state on the recommendation of the Judicial Council. A person who has served as Supreme Court justice for more than three years is eligible for appointment as chief justice. Generally, the chief justice is appointed from among the senior-most justices.

Justices are appointed from two categories. First, from among seniormost judges of high courts and second, from among the advocates who have a minimum of bachelor’s degree and have practiced law for at least 15 years. Likewise, seniormost judges from district courts, gazetted first class officers from the judicial service and advocates who have practiced law for at least a decade are appointed as high court judges on the recommendation of the Judicial Council.

Similarly, for district court judges, 20 percent of the seats are reserved for gazetted second class officers from the judicial service based on their performance, 40 percent of the seats are filled through competition among officers of the judicial service and the remaining 40 percent seats are filled through an open competition. And the appointments are made on the basis of the recommendation of the Judicial Council, which is led by the chief justice.

What are the processes to impeach chief justice?

Impeachment is a way to remove the chief justice, justices, members of the Judicial Council and chiefs and members of constitutional commissions when they fail to fulfil their duties of office because of serious violation of the constitution and laws, and when they fail to demonstrate competency in work and discharge the duties of office honestly.

Article 101 (2) of the constitution allows one fourth of the existing members of the House of Representatives to register an impeachment motion. The chief justice, justice or those who got appointments in the constitutional bodies against whom an impeachment motion has been brought, are not allowed to discharge their duties until the motion is settled. The impeachment motion has to be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives.

However, the impeachment motion is tabled for discussion only after an impeachment recommendation committee of the lower house examines whether there are ample grounds for impeachment. An eleven-member committee is formed once the impeachment motion is registered at the Parliament Secretariat. Roj Nath Pandey, spokesperson at the secretariat, said the motion can be registered even when the House is not in session. However, the parliament has to be in session for forming the impeachment recommendation committee, discussing the motion and for putting the motion to vote.

As the government has already recommended the prorogation of the federal parliament, it is not possible to decide on the impeachment motion anytime soon even if it gets registered. Only the CPN-UML as a single party has the strength to register the motion and its support is a must for its endorsement.

Which is the responsible body to take actions or warn judges and justices?

It is the Judicial Council’s responsibility to investigate wrongdoings of judges and justices and take action. The council can even sack judges of lower courts. Article 153 of the constitution authorises the council to take disciplinary action against justices and even sack judges.

However, except in very few incidents, the council has failed to perform its role to check the wrongdoings and misconduct of justices and judges. In the chief justice-led five-member council, members with political backgrounds are in majority.

What is the impact of the ongoing tussle?

The Supreme Court has been paralysed for the last four days. Except for hearing five cases by a single bench of Chief Justice Rana on Wednesday, no other hearing has been conducted in the last four days. Hearings on 872 cases, which have been pending for more than a decade, have been deferred due to the boycott of benches by justices and lawyers. As a result, justice seekers have suffered. Their anger has grown against the judiciary while it has also increased pessimism. Constitutional experts say the lingering deadlock will ultimately degrade people’s faith in the judiciary.

Bipin Adhikari, former dean at the Kathmandu University School of Law, said it is unfortunate that the judiciary has been mired in a serious controversy, while people have little faith in the executive and the judiciary. He said the sooner the problem is resolved, the lesser will be the loss the judiciary will face. “Rana is the root cause of the present problem. His exit from the judiciary is the only way to end the present logjam and maintain its dignity,” he said.

प्रधानन्यायाधीशको पछिल्ला कार्यशैलीको आलोचना गर्दै शुक्रवार कानुन क्षेत्रका दुई सङ्गठनले विज्ञप्ति निकालेपछि चोलेन्द्र शम्शेर जबरा पुन: विवादमा तानिएका छन्।

सोह्रबुँदे विज्ञप्तिमार्फत् पूर्वन्यायाधीश फोरमले “एकपछि अर्को विवादमा तानिएको भन्दै प्रधानन्यायाधीशले निकाश दिनुपर्ने” बताएको छ।

नेपाल बार एशोसिएशनले पेसी तोक्ने स्वचालित वा गोलाप्रथा प्रणाली लागु गर्नुपर्ने प्रतिबद्धताका लागि १५ दिने समयसीमा तोक्दै त्यसो नभएमा बारले “न्यायिक नेतृत्वलाई विश्वास गर्न सकिने अवस्था नरहने” जनाएको छ।

एकजना संविधानविद्ले न्यायिक नेतृत्वमै प्रश्न उठेको र उसले समस्या समाधान गर्ला भन्ने विश्वास समेत कानुनवृत्तमा नदेखिएको बताउँछन्।

“यति ठूलो वृत्तले शङ्का गरेपछि त्यसबारे वहाँका आफ्ना दृष्टिकोण भए पनि विश्वास आर्जन गर्न नसकेका कारण वहाँले राजीनामा दिनु राम्रो हुन्छ,” विपिन अधिकारी भन्छन्।

“त्यसरी सोच्नुभएन भने अबको बाटो प्रतिनिधिसभाले जिम्मेवारी वहन गर्नुपर्छ।”

पूर्वन्यायाधीशहरूले चाहेको निकास कस्तो हो?
न्यायपालिकाको नेतृत्वमा आएयता कहिले इजलास गठन त कहिले फैसलाका विषयलाई लिएर विवादमा पर्दै आएका प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्र शमशेर जबराले निकाश दिनुपर्ने पूर्वन्यायाधीशहरूको एउटा समूहको निष्कर्ष छ।

निकाशको अर्थबारे पूर्वन्यायाधीश फोरमका अध्यक्ष टोपबहादुर सिंहले बीबीसीसँग भने, “त्यो राजीनामा मात्रै भनिएको होइन वहाँले सुधार गर्छु भन्ने पनि हुन्छ।”

उक्त समूहले समेत प्रधानन्यायाधीशले निकाश नदिए उनका सम्बन्धमा उठेका सबै विवादहरूको निष्पक्ष छानबिनका लागि प्रतिनिधिसभाले आफ्नो कर्तव्यका लागि अग्रसर हुन आह्वान गरेको छ।

फोरमका अध्यक्ष सिंहले थपे, “प्रतिनिधिसभाले छानबिन गरोस् र उचित के हुन्छ निर्णय गरोस् भन्ने हो।”

प्रधानन्यायाधीशलाई विपक्षी बनाइएको मुद्दाको सुनुवाइ ११ महिनासम्म हुन नसकेकोदेखि तिनमा आफैँ न्यायकर्ता हुने अभिरुचि र प्रयास देखिएको, न्यायिक नेतृत्व र दलीय भगबन्डाका भरमा सर्वोच्चमा न्यायाधीश नियुक्ति गरिएका जस्ता विषयहरू फोरमको विज्ञप्तिमा उल्लिखित छन्।

त्यसमा पेसी सूचीको निर्धारणमा मनोमानी गरिएको, पत्नीहत्याको सजाय झेलिरहेका रञ्जन कोइरालाको कैद घटाएको, तक्मा लिएको, मन्त्रिपरिषद् गठनको विषयमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश पनि जोडिएको आदि विषयहरू पनि उठाइएको छ।

पछिल्लो पटक खासगरी प्रधानन्यायाधीशले शक्ति पृथकीकरणको मर्यादा उल्लङ्घन गरेर सरकार विस्तारमा भाग खोजेको भन्ने आरोप उनीमाथि लागेको थियो।

यसअघि मन्त्रिपरिषद्‌ विस्तारमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशको पनि भूमिका रहेको भन्दै विभिन्न सञ्चारमाध्यममा समाचारहरू आएपछि सर्वोच्च अदालतले त्यस्ता आरोपको खण्डन गर्दै एउटा विज्ञप्ति जारी गरेको थियो।

बारको जोड पेसी प्रणालीमा
वकिलहरूको छाता सङ्गठन नेपाल बार एशोसिएशनले समेत शुक्रवार नै स्वचालित पेसी प्रणाली लागु गराउने लगायतका सम्बन्धमा दिएको सुझावका कार्यान्वयन गर्न ध्यानाकर्षण गरेको छ।

सर्वोच्चकै न्यायाधीश हरिकृष्ण कार्कीको संयोजकत्वमा गठित समितिले समावेश गरी तयार गरेको प्रतिवेदन लागु गराउनेबारे प्रधानन्यायाधीशले प्रतिबद्धता जनाए पनि अदालतको फुलकोर्टबाट निर्णय गराउन तदारुकता नदेखाएको महसुस भएको बारको भनाइ छ।

उक्त प्रतिवेदन लागु गराउने समयसीमासहितको प्रतिबद्धता सर्वोच्च अदालतबाट १५ दिनभित्र आउनुपर्ने माग नेपाल बार एशोसिएशनले गरेको छ।

बारले आफ्नो विज्ञप्तिमा अदालतको पेसी व्यवस्थापन र इजलास गठनका सम्बन्धमा भइरहेको व्यवस्थाबाट “कतिपय गलत कार्यहरू भइरहेको” जनाएको छ।

महासचिव लीलामणि पौडेलद्वारा जारी विज्ञप्तिमा सोको सट्टामा स्वचालित पेसी प्रणाली लागु गराउन र सो प्रणाली लागु गर्न कठिन प्राविधिक रूपले केही समय लाग्ने भएमा सम्पूर्ण अदालतहरूमा गोला प्रणालीबाट पेसी तोक्न सुझाव दिइएको जनाइएको छ।

को हुन् चोलेन्द्र शम्शेर जबरा?
चोलेन्द्र शम्शेर जबराको जन्म मंसिर २०१४ मा कालिकास्थानमा भएको सर्वोच्च अदालतको वेबसाइटमा प्रकाशित विवरणमा उल्लिखित छ।

उनले नेपाल ल क्याम्पसबाट डिप्लोमा इन ल (डीएल) गरेका छन्।

ओमप्रकाश मिश्र सेवानिवृत्त भएपछि जबरा पौष २०७५ मा प्रधानन्यायाधीश बनेका थिए।

उनी वैशाख २०५३ मा जनकपुर पुनरावेदन अदातलमा अतिरिक्त न्यायाधीश बनेर न्यायसेवामा प्रवेश गरेका हुन्। त्यसअघि उनी अधिवक्ताका रूपमा काम गर्थे।

तात्कालिक प्रधानन्यायाधीश सुशीला कार्कीविरुद्ध प्रतिनिधिसभामा दर्ता भएको महाभियोग प्रस्तावलाई अघि नबढाउन तथा उनलाई काममा फर्काउन वैशाख २०७४ मा आदेश दिएपछि जबरा चर्चामा आएका थिए।

जबराले झन्डै दुई दशकअघि विराटनगर पुनरावेदन अदालतमा न्यायाधीश हुँदा एउटा मुद्दामा तासको खेल ‘म्यारिज’ जुवा नभएको फैसला गरेका थिए। उनको उक्त फैसला पनि निकै चर्चित भएको थियो।

Even as he completes his ‘honeymoon period’ in office, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba is sending signals that he would like to call early elections.

Already under fire for non-performance and incompetence, his five-party coalition is in disarray, and some in his own Nepali Congress (NC) want elections before the party’s popularity plummets further.

Deuba led his five-party coalition into office on 13 July after the Supreme Court reinstated the Lower House that was dissolved by his predecessor K P Oli. But Deuba and some of his colleagues appear reluctant to allow Parliament to complete its full five-year term.

The next elections are due in December-January 2022, and Parliament’s term is valid till April 2023. Besides his party’s election prospects, Deuba also wants early polls to defuse increasing dissent within his party from those dissatisfied with his leadership. This is the fifth time Deuba has been Nepal’s prime minister in the last 23 years.

Those supporting Deuba’s push for early polls include leaders from all parties who lost in the 2017 polls, as well as coalition leaders who did not get ministerial portfolios in Deuba’s belated Cabinet expansion on 8 October. The opposition UML led by K P Oli has always batted for mid-term polls.

Electoral calculations now even determine relations between the coalition partners and the NC itself. The Maoist Centre (MC), for instance, appears not too unhappy to place all blame for the government’s failures on the prime minister’s lap. In fact, Deuba has become the lightning rod, while none of the criticism seems to rub off on the MC’s Pushpa Kamal Dahal and the party’s ministers in government.

“Voters are disillusioned, so the government must announce some bold initiatives in the public interest,” says the MC’s Giriraj Mani Pokhrel, who has served as education and health minister in previous governments. “The coalition must keep its unity intact till elections.”

When Oli dissolved the House for the first time on 23 December 2020 after facing a mutiny within his Nepal Communist Party from Mahdav Kumar Nepal and Dahal, Deuba who was then the leader of the main opposition party, had supported his call for a fresh electoral mandate. The NCP then split into the MC and UML, and Nepal himself broke away from the UML to form the Unified Socialists (US).

It would be advantageous for the NC to call for early elections, since it would benefit from the split in the NCP and UML, as well as the Janata Samajbadi Party led by Upendra Yadav, which is also in the coalition.

However, some NC insiders say that the real reason Deuba wants early polls is because of the party’s general convention, which Deuba wants to postpone to blunt rising criticism from party stalwarts like Ram Chandra Paudel, Shekhar Koirala and others who want the convention to go ahead.

The case for early polls and postponing the party convention is legally fraught, and Deuba will have to jump through some constitutional hoops if he is to announce it. “If the NC is going to postpone its general convention once again, the Election Commission could de-register its party name and election tree symbol,” says Punranjan Acharya, a political analyst.

Meanwhile, Dahal’s MC is holding its own convention in December, and the party does not appear to be ready yet for early elections. The MC was formed after the Supreme Court refused to accept the unity of the Maoists and the UML to form the NCP in 2018.

Dahal and the MC are already eying the NC as their prospective election rivals, and allowing Deuba to take the heat for the government’s many failures in the past 100 days. The Maoists see Deuba’s insistence on keeping the powerful Home, Defence and Foreign Ministries with the NC as a part of his elections strategy.

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari says that elections are deemed to have been held on schedule only if they are held after Parliament completed four and half years. He also says local elections should be held first, followed by federal polls. This would mean that Deuba’s early polls, if held, would be very close to normal elections anyway.

Party conventions used to be boisterous affairs, but except for the NC there does not seem to be much discussion about the MC, US and UML conventions. The reason could be that while the party leadership is being challenged in the NC by various factions, Dahal, Nepal and Oli seem to be firmly in control of their own parties.

प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणाका काम-कारबाही हेर्दा महाअभियोग लगाउन पर्याप्त आधार छ भन्ने मलाई लाग्छ: राधेश्याम अधिकारी

प्रधानन्यायाधीश पद व्यक्ति होइन, संस्था हो। त्यो पदमा बसेको व्यक्तिले पदको ओज, सम्मान, आस्था, निष्ठा र सदाचार गुमायो भने संस्था नै रहँदैन। त्यसैले उहाँले अब राजीनामा दिनुपर्छ: गीता पाठक

प्रधान्यायाधीशले सरकार निर्माणमा भूमिका खोज्ने कुरा अस्वीकार्य मात्र होइन, यस्तो सोच्ने प्रधानन्यायाधीशले न्यायपालिकाको नेतृत्व नै गर्नु हुँदैन। यसबारे सत्यतथ्य के हो छानबिन गर्नुपर्छ: विपिन अधिकारी

प्रधानन्यायाधीशले भाग खोजेको विषयबारे अघि कसरी बढ्ने भनेर नेपाल बारको कार्यकारी बैठकपछि थाहा हुन्छ: चण्डेश्वर श्रेष्ठ

प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्रशमसेर जबराले सत्तामा भागबन्डा खोजेको प्रकरणपछि यो विषय तार्किक निष्कर्षमा पुर्‍याउनुपर्ने कानुन तथा न्याय क्षेत्रका अगुवाहरूले बताएका छन्।

दसैंअघि प्रधानमन्त्री शेरबहादुर देउवाले मन्त्रिपरिषद विस्तार गर्दा प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणालाई भाग पुर्‍याउन उनका जेठान गजेन्द्र हमाललाई मन्त्री बनाएका थिए। व्यापक विरोध भएपछि हमालले २४ घन्टा नपुग्दै राजीनामा दिएका थिए।

प्रधानन्यायाधीश यति ठूलो विवादमा मुछिएपछि यो विषय त्यत्तिकै सामसुम हुन नसक्ने, त्यसको जवाफदेहिता न्याय क्षेत्रले खोज्नुपर्ने र प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणाले वहन गर्नुपर्ने न्याय क्षेत्रका अगुवाहरूको तर्क छ।

हामीले यसबारे राष्ट्रियसभा सदस्य तथा वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता राधेश्याम अधिकारी, नेपाल बार एसोसिएनका अध्यक्ष चण्डेश्वर श्रेष्ठ, कानुनका प्राध्यापक तथा वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता विपिन अधिकारी र वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता गीता पाठकसँग कुराकानी गरेका छौं।

राष्ट्रियसभा सदस्य अधिकारीले संवैधानिक आयोगहरूका नियुक्ति, तीविरूद्ध परेका मुद्दाको पेसी व्यवस्थापन र सुनुवाइदेखि प्रधानन्यायाधीशले गरेका काम-कारबाही शंकाको घेरामा परेको बताए। मन्त्रिपरिषदमा भागबन्डाको कुरालाई प्रधान्यायाधीश र प्रधानमन्त्री दुवैले अस्वीकार गरे पनि यो विषय शंकास्पद रहेको उनको भनाइ छ।

‘न्यायपालिकाका विकृति छानबिन समितिले समेत प्रधानन्यायाधीशको अधिकार कटौती गर्नेमा जोड दिएको छ। यसले न्यायालयभित्रै उहाँको नेतृत्व शंकाको घेरामा परेको देखाउँछ,’ उनले भने, ‘मन्त्रिपरिषदको भागबन्डाको कुरा आउनुभन्दा अघिदेखिकै उहाँका काम-कारबाही हेर्दा महाअभियोग लगाउन पर्याप्त आधार छ भन्ने मलाई लाग्छ। तर कसले लगाउने हो महाअभियोग? संविधानले जसलाई अधिकार दिएको छ उनीहरू तयार छन् त?’

‘राजनीतिक दलहरूले प्रधानन्यायाधीशका काम-कारबाहीमा प्रश्न गर्दा नितान्त राजनीतिक लाभहानि हेरेर गरेको देखिन्छ तर उनलाई कारबाहीको दायरामा ल्याएर न्यायालयको सुधारलाई तार्किक निष्कर्षमा पुर्‍याउन कोही पनि तयार छैनन्,’ उनले भने।

वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता पाठक पनि प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणाले लोकतन्त्रमा कसैले सोच्नसमेत नहुने काम गरेको बताइन्।

प्रधानन्यायाधीशले सत्तामा भाग खोजेको हो भने यसले शक्ति पृथकीकरण र संविधानवादका अभ्यास भत्काउने र विधिको शासन समाप्त पार्ने दिशामा मुलुकलाई पुर्‍याउने उनको तर्क छ। त्यसैले यसलाई त्यत्तिकै छाड्न नहुनेमा उनले जोड दिइन्।

‘प्रधानन्यायाधीश पद भनेको आफैंमा संस्था हो। त्यो पदमा बसेको व्यक्तिले त्यसको ओज, सम्मान, आस्था, निष्ठा र सदाचार गुमायो भने संस्था नै रहँदैन। अहिलेका प्रधानन्यायाधीशले मन्त्रिपरिषदमा भाग खोज्ने, यो मिलाउने त्यो मिलाउने भन्ने कुरालाई लिएर विवाद नै हुनुहुन्न थियो। यस्तो काम त उहाँले गर्नुभयो कि भएन भन्ने मात्र होइन, सोच्न पनि नमिल्ने कुरा हो,’ उनले भनिन्।

उनले अगाडि भनिन्, ‘घरि बेन्च गठन विवादित हुन्छ घरि संवैधानिक नियुक्ति विवादित हुन्छ। अहिले मन्त्रिपरिषदमै भाग खोजेको कुरा आयो। यस्ता कुरा पटकपटक उठेपछि संस्था बचाउन उहाँले अब राजीनामा दिनु उचित हुन्छ।’

न्यायालय शुद्धीकरणको विषय न्यायालयबाटै सुरू हुने उनले बताइन्। नेपाल बार लगायत न्यायालयभित्रका संस्थाहरूले यो विषय यसै छाड्न नहुने पाठकको भनाइ छ।

‘उहाँले राजीनामा दिनुपर्छ भन्ने हो। यसका लागि नेपाल बार लगायत संस्था बलियो अडानसहित अघि बढ्नुपर्छ। शुद्धीकरणका कुराहरू उठिरहेका छन्, यो त्यसै पूरा हुने कुरा होइन,’ उनले भनिन्।

संविधानविद तथा वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता विपिन अधिकारीले पनि मन्त्रिपरिषदमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशले भागबन्डा खोज्ने विषय निकै गम्भीर भएको बताए।

प्रधानन्यायाधीशका कथित प्रतिनिधिले मन्त्री भएर पनि विरोधपछि राजीनामा गरे तर त्यतिमै विषय सेलाउन नहुने उनको भनाइ छ।

‘हमालजीले राजीनामा दिनुभएको छ जसले एउटा ‘क्राइसिस डिफ्युज’ भयो। यसले प्रधानन्यायाधीशका ‘कथित’ प्रतिनिधिले मन्त्रिमण्डलमा सामेल हुन सकेनन्। तर सर्वोच्च अदालत पहिलोपल्ट यति नराम्रो विवादमा पर्‍यो। यस्तो विवाद न्यायालयमा उठ्नै हुन्नथ्यो,’ उनले भने, ‘प्रधान्यायाधीशले सरकार निर्माणमा भूमिका खोज्ने कुरा अस्वीकार्य मात्र होइन, यस्तो सोच्ने प्रधानन्यायाधीशले न्यायपालिकाको नेतृत्व नै गर्नु हुँदैन।’

प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणा साँच्चिकै दोषी हुन् भने उनलाई महाअभियोगको प्रक्रियामा लगेर पदच्यूत गर्नुपर्ने अधिकारीले बताए।

‘साँच्चै हो भने महाअभियोगको प्रक्रियामा जानुपर्‍यो। होइन भने यो विवाद किन यति प्रायोजित रूपमा आयो, यसबारे सरकारको दृष्टि स्पष्ट हुनुपर्छ। या त सरकारको पक्षमा या प्रधानन्यायाधीशको पक्षमा कहीँ न कहीँ, कोही न कोहीले गम्भीर गल्ती गरेको छ। यसका लागि नेपालको न्यायपालिकाले मूल्य तिरेको छ। त्यसैले यो विषयमा राम्रो कार्यदल बनाएर अनुसन्धान हुनुपर्छ,’ उनले भने।

उनले यो पनि भने, ‘प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन लगायत मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले राम्रो विधिशास्त्रीय आधारहरू स्पष्ट गरेकाले आजसम्म आफूले तिनको प्रतिरक्षा गरेका थियौं। तर प्रधानन्यायाधीशले तिनै फैसला देखाएर कार्यपालिकालाई टेवा दिएको छु, त्यसैले भाग चाहिन्छ भनेर फाइदा लिन खोज्छन् भने त्यो स्वीकार्य हुन्न।’

यो विषयमा न्याय क्षेत्रका संस्थाहरूले सत्यतथ्य अनुसन्धान गर्न, प्रधानन्यायाधीश दोषी रहेछन् भने कारबाहीको दायरामा ल्याउन वा सरकार दोषी रहेछ भने त्यसको पनि विरोध गर्न डट्नुपर्ने उनको भनाइ छ।

‘यो सामान्य अनियमितता वा अक्षमताको विषय होइन, निकै ठूलो विषय हो, यसलाई यत्तिकै छाड्न हुँदैन,’ उनले भने, ‘न्याय क्षेत्रका व्यक्ति, नेपाल बार, सर्वोच्च बारजस्ता संस्थाले राजीनामा गर्न वा महाअभियोग लगाउन भन्दै दबाब दिन सक्छन्।’

नेपाल बारका अध्यक्ष चण्डेश्वर श्रेष्ठले पनि मन्त्रिमण्डलमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशले भाग खोजेको विषय लोकतन्त्रमा सुन्न पनि नसकिने कुरा भएको बताएका छन्।

प्रधानन्यायाधीशले समाचारमा आएका विषय खण्डन गरेर विज्ञप्ति निकाले पनि यसलाई त्यसै जान दिन नमिल्ने उनले बताए। प्रधानन्यायाधीशले भाग खोजेको विषयमा कसरी अघि बढ्ने भनेर नेपाल बारको कार्यकारी बैठकपछि थाहा हुने उनको भनाइ छ।

नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनले भने प्रधान्यायाधीशले मन्त्रिपरिषदमा भाग खोजेको प्रकरण बाहिरिएपछि त्यसलाई रोक्न भन्दै विज्ञप्ति निकालेको थियो।

असोज १८ गते निकालेको उक्त विज्ञप्तिमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश राणाका कार्यपालिका र अन्य संवैधानिक निकायमा भाग खोज्ने क्रियाकलापले न्यायपालिका गम्भीर संकटमा परेको महशुस भएको उल्लेख थियो।

‘प्रधानन्यायाधीशले न्यायपालिका सुधारका काममा उदासिन रही अन्य संवैधानिक निकायहरूमा आफ्नो प्रत्यक्ष चासो र हस्तक्षेप बढाएका कुरा यसअघि पनि आइरहेका थिए। यस सम्बन्धमा सम्मानित सर्वोच्च अदालतमै विवादहरू विचाराधीन रहिरहेको अवस्थामा कार्यपालिकासँग समेत आफ्नो भाग वा कोटा खोज्ने र उक्त कोटा दिन सम्माननीय प्रधानमन्त्री र राजनीतिक दलका नेताहरू तयार रहने कार्यबाट न्यायपालिकाको स्वतन्त्रता, सक्षमता र निष्पक्षतामा गम्भीर संकट उत्पन्न भएको एसोसिएसनले महशुस गरेको छ,’ बारले विज्ञप्तिमा भनेको थियो।

यता सर्वोच्च अदालतका न्यायाधीशहरू प्रधानन्यायाधीशले आफूहरूसमेतलाई विवादमा मुछ्ने काम गरेको भन्दै असन्तुष्ट छन्। तर राणाले मन्त्रिपरिषदमा भाग खोजेको भन्ने समाचार भ्रामक भएको भन्दै सर्वोच्चले खण्डन निकालेपछि आफूहरू विवाद सुरू गर्ने मुडमा नभएको एक न्यायाधीशले बताए।

न्यायाधीशहरू पनि नेपाल बार, सर्बोच्च बारजस्ता संस्थाले कसरी यो विषय अघि बढाउँछन् भनेर पर्खिरहेका देखिन्छन्।

A sizeable section of Nepali Congress leaders has been batting for “early” elections in April-May, proposing local and provincial elections in October-November 2022. They believe such an arrangement could help address some internal issues, as the party is planning its general convention in November. According to leaders, parliamentary elections before the local and provincial elections could be helpful in managing internal party disputes.

An “early” election has been in the debate among some sections of parties for quite a while. There are different views on whether it is possible.

Leaders from the ruling coalition as well as constitutional and legal experts say there are challenges galore.

“Once the present House enters its fifth year, the prime minister can dissolve the House and declare elections, provided that there is consensus between the ruling alliance and the opposition party,” said Bipin Adhikari, former dean of the Kathmandu University School of Law.

The current Parliament first met on March 5, 2018, having been elected from the elections held in November-December 2017. It’s five-year term will be completed in March, 2023. Technically, the country needs to go to the polls to elect a new Parliament in November-December 2022.

“The Supreme Court ruling does not stop the government from announcing elections six months prior to the completion of the House’s five-year term. But to do that, the prime minister has to dissolve the House,” said Adhikari.

Can Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba dissolve the House just for the sake of early elections?

There is no easy answer.

For an automatic dissolution of the House, Deuba needs to lose a vote of confidence. Deuba won the vote of confidence on July 18 with the backing of 184 lawmakers, following his appointment as prime minister as per a July 12 Supreme Court order.

Many within the Nepali Congress wonder on what moral grounds Deuba will dissolve the House in favour of early elections, as his coalition partners would argue that their “fight” was to ensure the Parliament’s full term.

Deuba’s appointment as prime minister followed two House dissolutions by erstwhile prime minister KP Sharma Oli—in December last year and May this year.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), the CPN (Unified Socialist) and the Janata Samajbadi Party are Deuba’s coalition partners. They fought against Oli and made efforts to install Deuba arguing that Oli tried to kill the House prematurely and that the House must complete its full five-year term.

“It is not possible to hold early elections in April-May as some are suggesting,” said Narayan Kaji Shrestha, a Maoist Centre leader. “We can hold elections six months before the current Parliament completes its full term in March 2023. But parliamentary elections in April-May are unlikely. We won’t be able to justify that.”

When asked whether the ruling alliance is considering a plan to hold elections for three tiers of government (local, provincial and federal), Shrestha said he has not heard about it.

The Congress-Maoist Centre alliance, backed by Madhav Nepal, who now leads the CPN (Unified Socialist), and the Janata Samajbadi Party may have been able to unseat Oli, but distrust and disagreement between them run deep.

Madhav Nepal formed the CPN (Unified Sociliast) on August 26 after his months-long struggle against Oli.

Insiders say the Maoist Centre, the CPN (Unified Socialist) and the Janata Samajbadi Party are not keen on holding early parliamentary elections for one reason—none of them is confident about winning “enough” seats.

Early elections could benefit Deuba. And Oli will be happy to accept early elections, as that justifies his stated position—there is the need to seek a fresh mandate from the people. After all, Oli had dissolved the House twice on the same premise, which was vehemently opposed by other parties. Oli’s House dissolutions, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

One way early elections can be thrust upon the country is that the government turns into a minority. But Deuba has the support of coalition partners that do not want early elections.

A leader from the ruling coalition said whether Deuba would take the risk of “dissolving” the House to call early polls is a difficult question.

“What if the coalition partners decide not to participate in the elections saying their stated position is that the current Parliament must complete its full term,” said the leader who did not wish to be named fearing controversy.

Leaders close to Deuba said “no one is actually against early elections”.

“Oli was ousted for his misadventures. The constitution is on track now,” said Ramhari Khatiwada, a leader close to Deuba. “No one will boycott if early elections are held. We have been advising the prime minister to conduct parliamentary elections in April-May. We can then hold local and provincial elections in October-November. This will also honour the verdict of the Supreme Court.”

According to Khatiwada, only a fresh mandate can ensure political stability.

“Anyway, why should the government take the risk of becoming unpopular by leading the current government for a long time, when early elections can be beneficial to our party,” said Khatiwada.

Many within the Congress may agree with Khatiwada, as they believe anti-incumbency can harm the party if the government lasts long, but some are dead against early polls.

“We can hold elections some months before the House completes its five-year term,” said Ram Chandra Poudel, who leads a rival camp in the Congress party. “Holding elections in April-May comes with a lot of legal complications and it would also reflect badly on our party, as we were the ones who called for letting the House complete its full term when Oli tried to kill it twice.”

Upendra Yadav, chair of the Janata Samajbadi Party, also said that elections in April-May are unlikely.

“There is no chance of holding elections in April-May and there should not be anything like early elections, as the House needs to complete its full term,” Yadav told the Post. “The ruling coalition only recently completed Cabinet expansion. There has been no discussion on early elections among the coalition partners.”

Experts on constitutional and legal matters say since Nepali parties have a tendency to not give two hoots about the rule of law, the less said about them is the better. But as far as early elections are concerned, besides legal hurdles, a consensus among the parties is also unlikely, according to them.

“Even if the incumbent prime minister manages to take the opposition into confidence for early polls, there is no certainty his coalition partners will agree to it,” said Adhikari, the law professor. “I doubt leaders from the coalition are ready to go for parliamentary elections in April-May.”

In less than 72 hours since his appointment as industry minister, Gajendra Hamal resigned on Sunday morning, saying there was unwanted controversy over him. Hamal, a district level leader of the Nepali Congress, was appointed by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on Friday. There was quite an uproar, firstly because he is not a parliamentarian and secondly, he was appointed at the behest of Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. Hamal is a close relative of Rana.

A press note released by Deuba’s private secretariat on Sunday morning stated that Hamal resigned as requested by the prime minister after questions were raised over his appointment.

Hamal’s appointment—and resignation—put a spotlight on Deuba and Rana, who are alleged to have worked in cahoots, thereby trampling upon the principle of separation of powers as the two lead key state organs, the executive and the judiciary.

Political analysts say Hamal’s appointment, however, shows the rot spreads wide and runs deep.

“Hamal’s appointment is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Rajendra Maharjan, a political commentator, author and columnist for Post’s sister paper Kantipur. “This is just one more example of how our institutions have decayed over the years.”

Even though Hamal resigned on Sunday morning, questions remain how the chief justice dared to seek a share in the Cabinet and why the executive was under pressure to oblige.

Political analysts and legal experts say it would be wrong to define Nepal’s political culture based solely on the Hamal incident. According to them, the recent appointment, in agreement between the judiciary and the executive, is a continuation of what has been happening for quite some time in Nepal.

People in power in Nepal for long have not followed the rule of law; they have rather invested more time in using loopholes in law.

The ruling coalition made up of the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), the CPN (Unified Socialist) and the Janata Samajbadi Party was justifying Hamal’s appointment saying the constitution allows the prime minister to induct any non-parliamentarian into the Cabinet.

But the question is whether Deuba indeed needed Hamal in his Cabinet and whether the constitution indeed envisaged the provision so as to pave the way for the chief of the judiciary to have a say in the Council of Ministers.

“Those in power in Nepal have a tendency to ignore legal, constitutional and moral boundaries when it comes to their interests,” said Bipin Adhikari, a former dean at Kathmandu University School of Law. “Hamal’s appointment is yet another episode of this trend.”

Though Hamal’s appointment seems to have exposed how the executive and the judiciary are working hand in glove, this trend has been working fine for people in power for quite a long time. An internal report prepared by a Supreme Court justice also has suggested that corruption is rife in the judiciary.

That the justices in the Supreme Court are appointed under certain parties’ “quotas” has become so apparent that it has become a norm. In such a situation, observers say, it has become difficult to identify “who belongs to who” and “who is working on whose behalf.”

Justices’ appointment in the Supreme Court itself has been so heavily politicised that judicial independence has come into question. About a decade or so ago, the media reported that a group of justices had reached the CPN-UML headquarters in Balkhu to “thank the party leadership” for appointing them.

Appointments under political quotas have become a norm in Nepal. Constitutional and ambassadorial appointments based on parties’ recommendations have been taking place ever since democracy was restored in 1990.

Observers say the trend is so prevalent that it appears to have become the norm, which in a country that follows rule of law should be vehemently questioned and opposed.

“Even if Rana had made the recommendation, Deuba must have warned him that an impeachment motion could be registered against him if he tried to influence the executive,” said Adhikari, the law professor. “But instead of questioning the judiciary chief, Deuba and his partners obliged.”

Some argue that Rana’s aspirations had risen long ago. Rana reportedly got shares in appointments in different constitutional bodies during the erstwhile KP Sharma Oli government. He readily attended the meeting of the Constitutional Council which was called after a revision in the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties and Procedures) Act, 2010, through an ordinance in December last year. When he participated in the second meeting of the council on May 4, three petitions were sub judice in the Supreme Court against the ordinance and recommendations made as per the ordinance.

The two meetings of the council made 58 nominations for appointments to 12 constitutional bodies and 52 of them got appointed.

Rana would have thought if he got a share in the constitutional bodies why not demand one in the government also, many say.

“We have incidents where parties have got shares in the judiciary by appointing their cadres as judges. The court is now seeking its share in the executive,” said Maharjan. “This is bound to happen when personal decisions matter over rules and laws.”

The chief justice-led Judicial Council has the authority to nominate justices and judges in three tiers of court. Over the years the parties in power have “installed” their people in the courts.

Maharjan said appointing Rana’s man as minister gives room to suspect that the ruling alliance wants undue favour from the Supreme Court.

The Constitutional Bench led by Rana on July 12 had restored the House of Representatives dissolved by Oli and ordered Deuba’s appointment as prime minister. Instead of taking the decision as a regular work of the judiciary, Rana was hailed as the savior of the constitution.

“Directing the President’s Office to appoint Deuba as prime minister within 24 hours was a serious case of judicial activism,” Tara Nath Ranabhat, a former Speaker, told the Post. “The decision undermined Parliament’s supremacy. It’s the Parliament that elects and appoints a prime minister, not a court. The court dikat was never criticised, hence we are in a situation where the court is dictating.”

The judiciary is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution and its decisions and verdicts in itself are laws. But when the court starts dictating and taking control of state affairs, it’s unfortunate, say observers.

Even when some leaders of the Nepali Congress, to which Hamal belongs, were expressing reservations about this appointment, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chair of the Maoist Centre which is a key coalition partner in the Deuba government, was defending the appointment. Insiders say rather than Deuba, it was Dahal who wanted Hamal in the Cabinet because he had “given a word”.

Politicians in the ruling alliance say Hamal’s appointment may have received a lot of media attention and criticism, but this is just the continuation of an ill-practice in Nepal.

“We established a new political system through a long struggle but we couldn’t get the leadership to carry this forward,” Narayan Kaji Shrestha, a senior leader of the Maoist Centre, told the Post. “The country couldn’t get the leadership which could act as per the changed context. This latest episode just exposed the weakness of our leadership.”

संविधानविद् अधिकारीले भने, ‘समाचार सत्य होइन भने यस्तो गलत सूचना फैलाउने नेता, मन्त्री र सञ्चारमाध्यमलाई समेत कानुनको दायरामा ल्याउनुपर्छ ।’ 

काठमाडौँ — प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्रशमशेर जबराले मन्त्रिपरिषद् विस्तारमा भाग मागेको भन्ने समाचार सार्वजनिक भएसँगै त्यसले राजनीतिक–न्यायिक वृत्तमा तरंग सिर्जना गरेको छ । कानुन व्यवसायीले प्रधानन्यायाधीशले ‘कार्यकारीसँग हिस्सेदारी मागेको’ भन्दै चर्को स्वरमा विरोध गरेका छन् भने सर्वोच्च अदालत र प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरा दुवैले समाचारप्रति कडा आपत्ति जनाएका छन् ।

चौतर्फी दबाब परेपछि सोमबार दिउँसो प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले सर्वोच्च अदालतका प्रवक्ता बाबुराम दाहाललाई विज्ञप्ति प्रकाशन गर्न लगाएर प्रस्टीकरण दिएका छन् । सर्वोच्च अदालतले प्रधानमन्त्रीको सिफारिसमा हुने मन्त्रिपरिषद्को गठन र विस्तारमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशलाई असान्दर्भिक रूपमा जोडिएको दाबी गरेको छ । सर्वोच्च अदालत बार एसोसिएसनका पदाधिकारीसँग सोमबार बिहानको भेटमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरा आफैंले पनि समाचार गलत भएको भन्दै खण्डन गरेका थिए । नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनले सोमबारै विज्ञप्ति प्रकाशन गरेर प्रधानन्यायाधीशले मन्त्रिपरिषद्मा भाग खोजेको भन्ने समाचारप्रति ध्यानाकर्षण भएको बताउँदै उक्त कार्य खेदजनक भएको जनाएको छ ।

सर्वोच्च अदालत बार एसोसिएसनका पदाधिकारी सोमबार प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरासँग ‘सत्यतथ्य सोध्न’ गएका थिए । ‘मन्त्रिपरिषद् विस्तारमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशले भाग मागेको समाचार पढेपछि हाम्रो गम्भीरतापूर्वक ध्यानाकर्षण भयो, त्यसबारे सत्यतथ्य सोध्न हामी सर्वोच्च अदालत गएका थियौं,’ सर्वोच्च बारका अध्यक्ष पूर्णमान शाक्यले भने, ‘सुरुमा उहाँ (प्रधानन्यायाधीश) ले सञ्चारमाध्यममा आएका कुराको खण्डन गरेर साध्य हुँदैन भन्नुभएको थियो । तर हामीले तपाईंले भाग माग्नुभएको होइन भने खण्डन गर्नुहोस्, न्यायपालिकाको निष्ठा र यसमाथि जनताको विश्वास हाम्रो पनि सरोकारको कुरा हो भन्यौं । त्यसपछि सर्वोच्चको खण्डन आएको हो ।’

उक्त भेटमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले मन्त्रिपरिषद् विस्तारमा आफूले भाग खोजेको भन्ने समाचार झूटो भएको बताएका थिए । ‘सञ्चारमाध्यमको यस्तो कार्यले स्वतन्त्र न्यायालयमाथि प्रहार भएको छ,’ जबरालाई उद्धृत गर्दै भेटमा सहभागी सर्वोच्च बारका सचिव ऋषिराम घिमिरेले बताए ।

सर्वोच्चले सोमबार विज्ञप्तिमार्फत संविधानबमोजिम न्यायपालिकालाई स्वतन्त्र, निष्पक्ष र सक्षम बनाउन प्रधानन्यायाधीश स्पष्ट रूपमा प्रतिबद्ध रहेको दाबी गरेको छ । ‘प्रधानन्यायाधीशलाई असान्दर्भिक रूपमा जोडेर अतिरञ्जित एवं भ्रामक समाचार प्रकाशन हुनु अत्यन्तै दुःखद र खेदजन्य’ भएको सर्वोच्चको प्रतिक्रिया छ । ‘सर्वोच्च अदालतप्रतिको जनआस्था र नेतृत्वप्रति प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पार्ने दूषित मनसायले समाचार आएको’ प्रवक्ता दाहालले विज्ञप्तिमा जनाएका छन् ।

नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनले भने प्रधानन्यायाधीशले मन्त्रिपरिषद् विस्तारमा भाग खोज्नु असंवैधानिक र खेदजनक भएको जनाएको छ । बारका महासचिव लीलामणि पौडेलले विज्ञप्तिमार्फत न्यायपालिकाको प्रमुखले कार्यकारी पदमा भाग खोज्ने कार्यले ‘राज्यका निकायहरूबीचको शक्ति सन्तुलन र नियन्त्रण, शक्ति पृथकीकरणको सिद्धान्त, संवैधानिक सर्वोच्चता, स्वतन्त्र, सक्षम र निष्पक्ष न्यायपालिकाको अवधारणा प्रतिकूल हुने’ भन्दै भर्त्सना गरेका छन् ।

‘सञ्चारमाध्यमका समाचार सत्य हुन् भने त्यो अत्यन्तै असंवैधानिक र राज्यसंयन्त्रमै दखल पुग्ने, संविधानको घोर उल्लंघन भई चरम अराजकता बढ्ने र अन्ततः असफल राष्ट्र बन्नेतर्फ उन्मुख हुन्छ,’ विज्ञप्तिमा

छ, ‘कुनै पनि संवैधानिक, कानुनी एवं राजनीतिक सिद्धान्तले यस्तो परिस्थितिको कल्पना गरेका छैनन् । मुलुकका जिम्मेवार संवैधानिक अंगका प्रमुख नै यसतर्फ उन्मुख हुने कार्य घोर असंवैधानिक, अलोकतान्त्रिक र खेदजन्य हो ।’

अधिवक्ता टीकाराम भट्टराईले विगत केही समयदेखि न्यायपालिकाले कार्यपालिकासँग राज्यका निकायहरूमा हिस्सेदारी खोज्ने प्रवृत्ति झाँगिँदै गएको बताए । ‘न्यायपालिकाले कार्यपालिकासँग हिस्सेदारी खोजेका धेरै घटना अप्रकट रूपमा रहेका छन्, अहिले त एउटा घटना मात्र प्रकट भएको हो,’ उनले भने, ‘सर्वोच्च अदालतले औपचारिक रूपमा खण्डन गरे पनि यसअघिका नियुक्ति, सिफारिस र फैसलाका आधारमा दुई निकायबीच हिस्सेदारी देखेका जनताले त्यस्तो खण्डनमा विश्वास गरेका छैनन् ।’

प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले सत्ता गठबन्धनका प्रमुख नेताहरूसमक्ष मन्त्रिपरिषद् विस्तारमा भाग माग गरेको समाचार कान्तिपुर दैनिकलगायतका सञ्चारमाध्यममा प्रकाशित भएको थियो । संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारीले सञ्चारमाध्यममा आएका यस्ता समाचार निकै गम्भीर विषय भएको बताए । ‘यी खबर सत्य हुन् भने हामीलाई कस्तो न्यायालय र कस्ता न्यायाधीश चाहिएको हो भनेर दलहरूले संवेदनशील भएर छलफल गरून्, प्रधानन्यायाधीशले भाग माग्नुभएको हो भने उहाँ हाम्रो संविधान र लोकतन्त्रका लागि खतरा हो, दलहरूले/संसद्ले त्यसमा विचार गरून्,’ संविधानविद् अधिकारीले भने, ‘समाचार सत्य होइन भने यस्तो गलत सूचना फैलाउने नेता, मन्त्री र सञ्चारमाध्यमलाई समेत कानुनको दायरामा ल्याउनुपर्छ ।’ अघिल्लो सरकारले दुईपटक गरी १२ वटा संवैधानिक निकायमा गरेको ५२ जना पदाधिकारीको नियुक्तिमा प्रधान्यायाधीश जबराले भाग लिएको विषयले राजनीतिक वृत्तमा मात्र होइन, सर्वोच्चको संवैधानिक इजलासमा समेत प्रवेश पाइसकेको छ । ती पदाधिकारीविरुद्ध परेका मुद्दा टुंग्याउन प्रधान्यायाधीश जबराले चासो नदेखाएको मात्र नभएर जटिलता थपेको आरोपसमेत लाग्ने गरेको छ ।

संविधानवादको आधारभूत सिद्धान्तले भन्छ– ‘राज्यका प्रमुख तीन निकायहरू कार्यपालिका, न्यायपालिका र व्यवस्थापिकाबीच शक्तिको पृथकीकरण हुन्छ । उनीहरूले एकअर्कालाई नियन्त्रण र सन्तुलनमा राख्छन् ।’ यो सिद्धान्तले न्यायपालिकाले बाँकी निकायसँग कुनै पनि प्रकारको हिस्सेदारीमार्फत सहकार्य गर्ने कुरालाई अस्वीकार गर्छ । अधिवक्ता भट्टराईले शक्ति पृथकीकरणको यस्तो सिद्धान्त कायम गराउन प्रधानन्यायाधीश स्वयंको दृढ इच्छाशक्ति चाहिने बताए । ‘कार्यपालिकाको चरित्र नै त्यही हो, उसले सकेसम्म लामो हात गर्न खोज्छ, हिस्सेदारी गर्न पाउनुलाई पनि राम्रै मान्छ होला,’ उनले भने, ‘तर प्रधानन्यायाधीशले हिम्मत, साहस र नैतिकताले कार्यकारीको त्यस्तो प्रयासलाई परास्त गर्नुपर्छ । त्यसो नगरेसम्म यो प्रवृत्तिमा सुधार आउँदैन ।’

Experts question motive behind introducing and repealing the ordinance on political parties.

CPN-UML chairperson KP Sharma Oli in his meeting with Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Gyanendra Bahadur Karki on Tuesday objected to the government decision to repeal the ordinance on political parties, which was issued on August 17. It came into effect the next day after authentication from the President. The government had prorogued the session of the federal parliament a day before, on August 16, to clear the way to introduce the ordinance.

Sending his message to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba through the law minister, Oli on Tuesday said the abrupt prorogation of the lower house to introduce the ordinance was a conspiracy against the main opposition besides being an unconstitutional move. He said as it is Parliament that promulgates, amends and scraps the laws, the government cannot repeal the ordinance when Parliament is in session. Oli said the repeal of the ordinance shows that it was brought with a mala fide intention to split the UML.

CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal was formed after a split in the UML and the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party was formed following a split in the Janata Samajbadi Party, utilising the provisions in the ordinance. Oli himself in April last year had introduced an ordinance which amended the Political Parties Act to allow dissidents to split parties if they commanded 40 percent either in the Parliamentary Party or in the Central Committee. It was withdrawn five days later, following widespread criticism. Though the ordinance aimed at splitting parties, it resulted in a merger of the Janata Samajbadi Party and the Rastriya Janata Party.

What is an ordinance?

An ordinance is a decree issued by the President, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, which is legally binding as a legislative act endorsed by Parliament. An ordinance can be introduced only when Parliament is not in session and there is an immediate need for a law to address a situation.

It has to get through Parliament within 60 days of the first meeting of a new session, or else it becomes ineffective. Article 114 of the Constitution of Nepal says if, at any time, except when both Houses of the federal parliament are in session, circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action, the President may, on recommendation of the Council of Ministers, promulgate an ordinance.

Why was the ordinance on political parties introduced?

A dissident faction of the UML under Nepal stood against its own government headed by party chair KP Sharma Oli and supported the then opposition alliance, led by the Nepali Congress, to form a coalition government. The Nepal faction wanted to split from the mother party but didn’t have the backing of 40 percent members in both the Central Committee and the Parliamentary Party, as required by the Political Parties Act to split the party. As the faction only had slightly over 20 percent backing of the Central Committee, the government led by Congress’ Sher Bahadur Deuba introduced the ordinance to amend the Act with the provision that a group in party can break away if it has 20 percent support either in the Central Committee or the Parliamentary Party.

Along with Nepal, the Mahantha Thakur faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party used the provision to launch a new party. Now as the motive to split the UML, as claimed by Oli, has been served, the government repealed it.

Why was the ordinance repealed?

Deuba hasn’t been able to expand his Cabinet for around three months as one of the coalition partners Janata Samajbadi Party demanded the ordinance be scrapped before the party can join the government. The party feared that its members who don’t get ministerial portfolios could split the party further. Just five lawmakers among the 21 (including two suspended) could part ways to form a new party. Some lawmakers left the Thakur faction to remain in the party in the hope of landing ministerial posts.

As the original provision of the Act has been restored with the repeal of the ordinance, it is now difficult for dissidents to split parties. Deuba’s coalition partners are now ready to nominate ministers for their respective quotas.

Was it targeted at splitting the UML?

From issuance of the ordinance to its repeal, facilitating the Nepal faction’s split from the UML seemed to be the sole motive of the ordinance as claimed by Oli on Tuesday. The CPN (Unified Socialist) was formed after a split in the largest party. The Thakur faction used the ordinance to break away from the Janata Samajbadi Party.

The Deuba government issued the ordinance in less than 24 hours after proroguing the federal parliament session. The split of the two parties began the very next day on August 19 after President Bhandari authenticated the ordinance. The two parties were formed in less than a week after the issuance of the ordinance.

Was the ordinance brought with mala fide intention?

Experts say the constitution envisions that ordinance can be issued only when there is a circumstance to fulfil the legal void with an emergency effect. Bipin Adhikari, a former dean at the Kathmandu University School of Law, said the promulgation of the ordinance by bypassing parliament is unjustifiable. He said it is no secret that the intention of the ordinance is to facilitate a split in the main opposition. Adhikari further said that the government cannot use its power to issue an ordinance with a discriminatory intention.

The ordinance was issued to split the UML, but it was repealed when the Janata Samajbadi Party landed in trouble. Though there is no legal or constitutional barrier to repeal the ordinance, there is a moral question as the issue is sub judice in the Supreme Court, he said.

Advocate Om Prakash Aryal said the promulgation of the ordinance was a politically correct decision as it was necessary to give a way out to then UML leaders who otherwise would have faced the party’s disciplinary actions. However, the move to issue the ordinance is against the spirit of the constitution, he said.

What next?

The ordinance has been repealed but whether it was constitutional hasn’t been tested yet. A total of six petitions have been filed challenging the ordinance which are sub judice in the Supreme Court. Adhikari said if the court deems the ordinance unconstitutional then it can declare all the actions taken on the basis of the ordinance null and void.

सर्वोच्च अदालतले माग्दा पनि बारले एमिकस पठाएन, अदालतले झिकाउने र बारले पठाउने विषयमा दुवैतर्फ अस्पष्टता

काठमाडौँ — सर्वोच्च अदालतको इजलासमा शुक्रबार नेपाल बार र सर्वोच्च अदालत बार एसोसिएसनले एमिकस क्युरी (अदालतका सहयोगी) नपठाएपछि बेन्च–बार टक्कर मात्र उजागर भएको छैन, एमिकस क्युरी छनोट प्रक्रिया र उनीहरूको भूमिकाका विषयमा बहससमेत सुरु भएको छ । कतिपय विज्ञले एमिकस क्युरी बोलाउने अदालतको आदेशदेखि नै समस्या रहेको औंल्याएका छन् ।

संवैधानिक इजलास गठनसम्बन्धी मुद्दा शुक्रबार न्यायाधीश प्रकाशकुमार ढुंगाना र मनोजकुमार शर्माको इजलासमा तोकिएपछि नेपाल बार र सर्वोच्च बारले एमिकस क्युरी नपठाएका हुन् । जसका कारण सुनुवाइ नै हुन सकेन । सर्वोच्चका न्यायाधीश हरि फुयाँलले गत भदौ १७ मा नेपाल बार र सर्वोच्च बारबाट दुई–दुई जना वरिष्ठ अधिवक्तालाई एमिकस क्युरी झिकाउन आदेश दिएका थिए । सर्वोच्चले फेरि एमिकस क्युरी झिकाउन आदेश गरेको छ । यो घटनाक्रममा अदालतको चौघेरोभित्र सीमित रहँदै आएको एमिकस क्युरीजस्तो प्राविधिक विषयमा आमचासोसमेत बढेको छ ।

अदालतले आफूसमक्ष आएका विवाद निरूपणका लागि पक्ष र विपक्षबाट पेस हुने तर्क मात्र पर्याप्त नहुने महसुस गर्‍यो भने सहयोग माग्दै विषय विज्ञ स्वतन्त्र व्यक्ति बोलाउने चलन छ । त्यस्ता विज्ञ व्यक्तिहरूलाई एमिकस क्युरी भनिन्छ । उनीहरूले विवादको पक्ष वा विपक्षका रूपमा नभएर विषय विज्ञको रूपमा स्वतन्त्र विचार दिने र त्यसबाट अदालतलाई ‘सही’ निष्कर्षमा पुग्न सहयोग पुग्ने ठानिन्छ । यो समग्र प्रक्रियालाई एकातर्फ अदालतले स्वतन्त्र व्यक्तिको विज्ञतालाई कदर गरेको मानिन्छ भने अर्कातर्फ विज्ञ व्यक्तिले निःशुल्क रूपमा आफ्नो विज्ञता अदालतलाई उपलब्ध गराएर इजलासप्रति सम्मान दर्शाएको रूपमा लिइन्छ । तर जानकारहरू नेपालमा यसको प्रयोगमा प्रशस्त अन्योल, द्विविधा र समस्या रहेको बताउँछन् ।

संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी अदालतले बारमार्फत एमिकस क्युरी झिकाउने अभ्यासलाई नै त्रुटिपूर्ण मान्छन् । ‘अदालतले एमिकस माग्दा मलाई यो प्रश्नमा सहयोग चाहिएको हो, फलानो व्यक्तिले त्यसमा सहयोग गर्न सक्छ भनेर स्वतन्त्रपूर्वक बोलाउँदैन । समस्या त्यहीँ सुरु हुन्छ,’ उनले भने, ‘अदालतले बार एसोसिएसनसँग माग गर्छ । हाम्रो बारले राजनीतिक आस्थाका आधारमा वकिलहरूबीच भागबन्डा गरिदिन्छ । एमिकस दिँदा कसरी इजलासलाई अनर (सम्मान) गर्ने भन्ने परम्परा र संस्कार दुवै देखिएको छैन ।’ संविधानविद् अधिकारी अदालतलाई जुन प्रश्नको जवाफका लागि सहयोग चाहिएको छ, त्यो उल्लेख गरेर विषय विज्ञ र विश्वसनीय व्यक्ति तोकेर अनुरोध गर्नुपर्ने बताउँछन् ।

अधिवक्ता मेघराज पोखरेल एमिकस क्युरीबारे अदालतको बुझाइमै समस्या देख्छन् । ‘हाम्रा अदालतले वकिललाई मात्र एमिकसका रूपमा योग्य देख्छन् । जुन विषयमा विवाद भएको हो, त्यसको विज्ञलाई झिकाउनुपर्ने हो,’ उनले भने, ‘बारमार्फत झिकाउँदा कसलाई पठाउने भन्ने विवादले बारकै कमिटीमा लफडा हुन्छ । त्यसपछि उपयुक्तभन्दा पनि आफ्ना मान्छे पठाउने गरिन्छ ।’

अहिलेसम्मको अभ्यासमा बारको नेतृत्वले छानेका वकिल मात्र एमिकसका रूपमा इजलास पुग्ने गरेको देखिन्छ । बारले आफ्ना सदस्यभन्दा बाहिरबाट छान्ने गर्दैन । नेपाल बार र यसका इकाइहरू राजनीतिक रूपमा विभाजित भएका कारण पार्टीको सहभागिताअनुसार एमिकस पनि भाग लगाउने गरिन्छ । अदालतले अधिवक्ता वा वरिष्ठ अधिवक्तालाई मात्रै झिकाउने आदेश गर्छ । अदालतले विज्ञ खोज्नतर्फ कुनै चासो दिएको देखिँदैन । ‘सार्वजनिक सरोकारका विवादमा मुद्दामा जित्ने वा हार्ने पक्षबाहेकका सरोकारवालासमेत हुन्छन् । अदालतले उनीहरूको सरोकार पनि सुन्नुपर्छ । इजलासमा प्रतिनिधित्व हुन नसकेको समुदायको पनि सहभागिता होस् भन्नेतर्फ विचार पुर्‍याउनुपर्छ । त्यसो गर्न बारमा मात्र निर्भर भएर सम्भव हुँदैन,’ संविधानविद् अधिकारीले भने, ‘अदालतले एमिकसका रूपमा अधिवक्ता वा वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता मागेको होइन । पक्ष र विपक्ष दुवैसँग नभएको ज्ञान मागेको हो, जुन वकिलसँग मात्र हुँदैन ।’

एमिकस किन चाहिएको हो, विवादको कुन प्रश्नमा स्पष्टता खोजिएको हो, एमिकसलाई कति समय दिने हो, इजलाससमक्ष एमिकसले दिएको योगदानलाई फैसलामा कसरी कदर गर्ने हो भन्ने जस्ता विषयमा अदालत पनि अस्पष्ट देखिन्छ । जसका कारण विवादित विषयमा विज्ञ व्यक्तिबाट सहयोग पाउने अवसर अदालत स्वयंले गुमाउँदै आएको छ । उदाहरणका लागि कृषिसम्बन्धी कुनै विवादमा अदालतले कृषि वैज्ञानिकबाट पाइनसक्ने ‘इनपुट’ वकिलबाट पाउन सम्भव हुँदैन । लेखा प्रणाली वा चिकित्साशास्त्रसम्बन्धी विवादमा पनि वकिलले भन्दा सम्बन्धित क्षेत्रकै विज्ञले राम्रो योगदान दिन सक्छन् । अदालतले त्यस्ता विज्ञहरू खोज्नतर्फ कुनै चासो दिएको देखिँदैन । ‘हाम्रा अदालतहरूले गोश्वारा रूपमा एमिकस माग्छन् । त्यस्तो आदेश गर्नुअघि कम्तीमा सम्बन्धित न्यायाधीशले उसलाई कुन प्रश्नमा विज्ञको सहयोग चाहिएको हो भन्ने थाहा पाउनुपर्छ,’ अधिवक्ता पोखरेलले भने ।

अधिवक्ताहरू सरिता पौडेल, देवकी पोखरेल र रजनी दाहालले २०७१ पुस २३ मा यौन दुर्व्यवहारलाई सरकारी मुद्दासम्बन्धी ऐनको अनुसूची १ मा समेट्ने आदेश माग गर्दै सर्वोच्च अदालतमा रिट दिएका थिए । बलात्कार वा बलात्कारको प्रयासजस्ता यौन हिंसा सरकारले प्रतिरक्षा गर्ने मुद्दाको सूचीमा रहेको भए पनि अन्य यौन दुर्व्यवहार त्यस सूचीमा नभएकाले पीडित आफैंले मुद्दा अदालतसमक्ष पुर्‍याएर प्रतिरक्षा गर्नुपर्छ । त्यसैले तिनलाई सरकारले नै अभियोजन र प्रतिरक्षा गर्ने मुद्दाको सूचीमा राख्नुपर्ने उनीहरूको माग थियो । मुद्दा दर्ता भएको ६ दिनपछि तत्कालीन न्यायाधीश (पछि प्रधानन्यायाधीशबाट सेवा निवृत्त) सुशीला कार्कीले ‘गम्भीर विषय रहेको’ भन्दै नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनबाट चार जना वरिष्ठ अधिवक्तालाई एमिकस क्युरीका रूपमा झिकाउने आदेश गरिन् ।

बारका तत्कालीन महासचिव खम्मबहादुर खाती (हाल महान्यायाधिवक्ता) ले वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताहरू बद्रीबहादुर कार्की, सुशीलकुमार पन्त, तुलसी भट्ट र हरिप्रसाद उप्रेतीलाई एमिकस क्युरीका रूपमा खटाएको पत्र सर्वोच्चलाई पठाए । तोकिएको मितिमा सुनुवाइ भएन । त्यसपछिको सुनुवाइमा कोही पनि एमिकस क्युरी सहभागी भएनन् । सर्वोच्चले फेरि पठाउन आदेश गर्‍यो । २०७३ पुस २१ मा बारले वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताहरू उपेन्द्रकेशरी न्यौपाने, तुलसी भट्ट र अधिवक्ताहरू गोविन्द बन्दी तथा मीरा ढुंगानालाई पठायो । तर फेरि पनि अदालतमा उक्त मुद्दाको सुनुवाइ भएन । दुई वर्षपछि २०७५ को पुस ४ मा न्यायाधीशहरू तेजबहादुर केसी र डम्बरबहादुर शाहीले रिट खारेज गरे । तर फैसलाको पूर्णपाठमा एमिकस क्युरी आए, नआएको, उनीहरूले कुनै राय उपलब्ध गराएको वा नगराएको केही उल्लेख छैन ।

यस्तो उदाहरण विशेष अदालतमा पनि प्रशस्तै भेटिन्छन् । अख्तियार दुरुपयोग अनुसन्धान आयोगले कर फर्छ्योट आयोगको निर्णयमाथि अन्य पदाधिकारीसहित आयोगका सदस्य चूडामणि शर्माविरुद्ध पनि विशेष अदालतमा मुद्दा चलाएको थियो । विशेषले राजस्व चुहावटसम्बन्धी मुद्दामा बारबाट एमिकस क्युरी खोज्यो । बारले २०७५ माघ २७ का लागि वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता कुमार रेग्मीलाई एमिकस क्युरीका रूपमा पठायो । त्यो दिन सुनुवाइ भएन । रेग्मी २०७६ वैशाख ६ मा सर्वोच्च अदालतको न्यायाधीश नियुक्त भए । त्यसपछि दुई पटकसम्म बारले वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता राघवलाल वैध र अधिवक्ता मोतीराम गौतमलाई एमिकस तोक्यो । उक्त मुद्दा हालसम्म पनि फैसला भएको छैन । एमिकस क्युरीले के योगदान गरेका छन् भन्ने स्पष्ट छैन ।

अदालतले एमिकस क्युरीको उपयोग कसरी गर्ने भन्नेबारेमा कुनै मापदण्ड बनाएका छैनन् । संविधानविद् अधिकारी ‘न्यायाधीशले आफू स्पष्ट हुन चाहेको प्रश्नसहित एमिकस बोलाउनुपर्ने’ बताउँछन् । ‘अदालतले पक्ष र विपक्षबाट यी प्रश्नको जवाफ पाएनौं, त्यसैले तिमीलाई बोलाएको हो, अब तिमीले यो विषयमा इजलासलाई स्पष्ट पार्देऊ, भन्नुपर्छ,’ उनले भने, ‘एमिकसले पक्ष/विपक्षकै तर्क दोहोर्‍याउँछ भने ऊ किन चाहियो ? अदालतमा न्याय नपाएका हजारौं मानिसको लर्को छ । उनीहरूको समय चोरेर एमिकसलाई दिनुपर्ने कारण के हो ? त्यसको औचित्य देखिनुपर्छ ।’

गम्भीर विषयहरूमा एमिकस क्युरी मगाउने प्रचलन नेपाल जस्तै ‘कमन लिगल सिस्टम’ भएका देशमा बढी प्रचलित छ । जानकारहरूका अनुसार ती देशमा अदालतले विज्ञ व्यक्ति तोकेर एमिकसका रूपमा बोलाउने गर्छन् । सार्वजनिक सरोकारका विवादमा विषय विज्ञले अदालतमा एमिकसका रूपमा आफूले योगदान गर्न चाहेको निवेदन दिने र त्यसलाई अदालतले स्वीकार गर्ने चलन पनि छ । त्यसबाहेक कानुन व्यवसायीहरूको छाता संगठन बार एसोसिएसनलाई नै पनि अदालतहरूले एमिकस माग्ने गर्छन् । ‘अदालतले बारलाई मागेको खण्डमा पनि उनीहरूको व्यावसायिक चरित्रका कारण नेपालमा जस्तो राजनीतिक भागबन्डा गरिँदैन । जसले विवाद पनि निम्त्याउँदैन,’ अधिवक्ता पोखरेलले भने, ‘नेपालमा भने एमिकस क्युरीको मर्मअनुसार काम भएको देखिँदैन ।’