The Supreme Court has started the process of filing a case against 52 constitutional office bearers which was blocked due to the interim order of its own single bench.
Due to the interim order issued in the writ petition filed by Ganesh Regmi on 17 September 2078, the cases against the appointment of constitutional office bearers have not been able to proceed. "The same writ petition is being filed on Friday (today)," said Supreme Court spokesperson Vimal Poudel. In that case, it was ordered to send amicus curiae at the rate of 2/2 people from both the bars.
The Supreme Court, while hearing Regmi's writ petition had adjourned the hearing of the ordinance related to the Constitutional Council and the appointment case based on it.
An interim order issued by a single bench of Justice Hari Phuyal had raised all-round questions. The petition, which was in a single sitting, was submitted to the Constitutional Court from the administrative remarks of Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana. Friday is the turn of the same petition.
As the interim order issued by the single bench is upheld, it is not the turn of the Supreme Court to hear the 11 petitions filed by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, advocate Omprakash Aryal, Samrit Kharel and others. Friday's constitutional session will decide whether to continue the order of that single session.
On August 3, a single bench of the Supreme Court had issued an order to stop the hearing of the case pending in the Constitutional Court, saying that there was a risk of holding a constitutional session without the Chief Justice.
If the petition filed by Advocate Regmi is settled, the Constitutional Court may hear the petition against the appointment of 52 constitutional office-bearers on Friday. In that case, it will be the turn of 11 petitions registered from 1 December 2077 to 28 September 2078, which are related to constitutional appointments.
After a preliminary hearing of petitions that have not been heard even once, the Constitutional Court may issue a show cause order or an interim order in those cases.
KP Sharma Oli had tried to appoint constitutional office bearers from the Constitutional Council when he was the Prime Minister. Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota and Leader of the Opposition Sher Bahadur Deuba were absent from the meeting due to internal strife within the then Communist Party of Nepal (CPN).
At that time, Prime Minister Oli added that three of the six members of the Constitutional Council could recommend appointments through an ordinance and appointed 52 people in two phases. Petitions against the same appointment are pending in the Supreme Court.
There are three different demands in the petitions. As the ordinance is unconstitutional, there is a demand for its repeal and the appointment made on the basis of the ordinance should be revoked. Secondly, the constitution itself provides for the appointment of constitutional office bearers only after a parliamentary hearing. However, Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure of the Joint Meeting of the Federal Parliament and the Joint Committee (Operations) stipulates that the appointment will not be hindered if the committee does not reach a decision within 35 days. Another petition has been filed demanding its repeal saying that the rules are in conflict with the provisions in the constitution.
Speaker Agni Sapkota had also filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the constitutional appointment. A petition filed by him claiming that he was a member of the Constitutional Council but was not given any information about the meeting should be revoked is pending in the joint sitting of the Supreme Court. His petition, which was issued only with a show-cause order, could not proceed due to the interests of Chief Justic.
Chief Justice, who was suspended due to impeachment in a dispute over the appointment of constitutional office bearers, was directly involved in the controversy. He is accused of assisting Prime Minister Oli by attending a meeting of the Constitutional Council formed as per the ordinance and appointing people close to him as constitutional office bearers. He admitted the allegations in a few interviews.
Chief Justice Jabbar, who played a controversial role in the meeting of the Constitutional Council and the constitutional appointment, did not proceed with the hearing of the case against the appointment for a long time. As the hearing progressed, he tried to move the case from the Constitutional Session to be formed under his own leadership. After widespread protests, he announced his decision to take a leave of absence from the Constitutional Court. After that, the petition of Advocate Regmi was registered in the Supreme Court and the case against the constitutional appointment could not be heard due to the interim order of the single bench.
READ ALSO:
