KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench will continue hearings on Monday over 15 writ petitions demanding the annulment of appointments made to key constitutional bodies during the last tenure of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli.
A full bench led by Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, Justices Sapana Malla Pradhan, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Kumar Chudal, and Nahakul Subedi is hearing the high-stakes case, which concerns the controversial appointment of 52 office bearers to constitutional bodies including the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the National Human Rights Commission, and the Election Commission.
The hearing entered its fifth day on Sunday but was not concluded. The Supreme Court administration has confirmed that the session will resume on Monday.
Attorney General Ramesh Badal spent the entire day Sunday presenting the government’s arguments. His statement remains unfinished, and other government lawyers are still set to argue. Arguments from the petitioners’ side have already been completed, while those representing the constitutional appointees have yet to speak. After all sides present their arguments, the bench will allow time for rebuttals before moving to verdict deliberation.
Although full bench hearings are typically held on Wednesday only, Sunday’s session was called at the initiative of Chief Justice Raut to expedite proceedings in the prolonged case, which has been under regular review since last Magh (mid-January to mid-February).
The petitions were filed by Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi, Advocate Om Prakash Aryal, and others.
The appointments in question were made on December 15, 2020, under an ordinance passed by the Oli administration. The appointments bypassed parliamentary hearings, sparking legal and constitutional debate that has yet to be resolved. Several of the officials appointed at the time are now approaching the end of their six-year terms.
The Supreme Court’s final ruling is expected to set important legal precedent on executive authority, judicial independence, and the constitutionality of appointments made without parliamentary oversight.
