Supreme Court judges have no right to question the validity of the Parliamentary declaration. They must face reappointment
By Prakash Bom in New York
Many of us who are watching the democratic process in Nepal from abroad are skeptical about the way political leaders, legislators, Supreme Court judges, and government officials think, respond and act with their power to maintain the status quo. These ruling elites, especially the Supreme Court judges, have tried to defy democratic changes during this transition period. They raised constitutional questions over the House of Representatives Declarations 2063. This is an outright disgrace to the mandate of People’s Movement II.
We have to question the appointment status of these Supreme Court judges who have tried to invalid the historic political declarations that sprung from the mandate of people’s movements. These judges were appointed by the feudal oligarchic monarchy. Therefore they are prompted to question the validation of the historic legislative declarations. These judges really want to maintain the status quo by having the monarchy as the head of the state to validate the historic declarations. This is ridiculous.
‘Proclamation can’t be challenged in court’
KATHMANDU, Nov 24-The government in response to the Supreme Court Friday said the Parliament Proclamation can’t be challenged in court. The Ministry of Law and Justice was responding to a show cause notice, issued by the apex court over a petition filed by advocate Achyut Prasad Kharel challenging the constitutionality of the proclamation. In response the ministry said the proclamation was a political issue and the court can’t enter a political decision. (source)
For them, it seems, the mandate of people is not enough. Yet they tried to seek the independence of the judiciary during this transition period. How could the judiciary be independent if judges still cling to idea of absolute monarchy?
Now the government has to request the Supreme Court not to raise legal or constitutional questions over the House of Representatives Declarations 2063. We as observers from abroad insist that these judges either must be sworn in before the upcoming interim parliament or they should be reappointed via parliamentary procedures. Then only the independence of judiciary can be established.
On the other hand, it is pathetic for the judiciary to adopt the practice of party-line jurisdictions as the power shifted from the monarchy to the parties. How can such practice of judiciary be independent? The decision of the Special Court on former minister Khum Bahadur Khadka and former minister and Nepali Congress leader Govinda Raj Joshi by Supreme Court judges Bhupadhwaj Adhikari, Komal Nath Sharma and Cholendra Shumsher Rana are the fresh examples of party-line jurisdictions.
If the prosecutor Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority does not defend the verdict then this is a great lose for the nation’s corruption control procedures. This has already defamed future of the new democracy of Nepal. The prosecutor must question the validation of verdicts to seek answers on these questions: What are insufficient evidences? And what are entries of facts in the court?
If not the Parliament must step in to seek clarifications on these verdicts.