KATHMANDU, May 23: Legal experts have termed as ´unusual´ the deferring time and again of hearings at the Supreme Court (SC) on a writ petition against the approval of the ordinance on removing constitutional difficulties.
Hearings on the writ petition, which also challenges the appointment of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi as chairman of the Interim Election Council, have been deferred 17 times over the last two months. The petition was filed by Advocate Subhas Acharya. [break]
Stating that there is a provision in the SC regulations for priority hearings in cases of constitutional import, former justice Balram KC said that such cases should have given priority for hearings.
“I don´t know why that particular case did not get priority,” KC told Republica, adding, “The other organs of state may turn arbitrary at a time when there is no parliament and the system of checks and balance does not exist. So, the judiciary, especially the apex court with its extraordinary jurisdiction, should have been more proactive.”
Senior Advocate Harihar Dahal sees two possible reasons behind the deferral of hearings on the writ petition. “First, there might be the influence of the executive [which is currently led by the chief justice] on the judiciary,” said Dahal. “Secondly, the apex court might be thinking that it is better not to enter into a political issue.”
Advocate and CPN-UML leader Agni Kharel termed the development a serious matter. “It shows that the apex court is not interested in such issues,” he maintained.
Kharel stated that the SC move will further fuel speculation that the judiciary is under the influence of the executive. “The judiciary should conduct hearings on such petitions at the earliest in order to demonstrate in practice that it is independent,” he argued.
Former chief justice Anup Raj Sharma said that hearings on the petition might have been deferred as it was not considered priority.
However, petitioner Acharya argued that there should first be a hearing to decide whether or not the writ petition should be given priority.
Hearings on the petition were first scheduled for March 18, at the single bench of Justice Girish Chandra Lal, and rescheduled for March 20 at the single bench of Justice Sushila Karki. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th rescheduling of the hearings then followed, at the single benches of Justices Lal, Acting Chief Justice Damodar Prasad Sharma, Justice Lal again, Sharma again, Justice Ram Kuimar Prasad Shah, Sharma again, Justice Prakash Wasti, Justice Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, Justice Bharat Bahadur Karli, Gyanendra Bahadur Karki again, Lal again and Justice Shushila Karki, respectively.
The hearings were rescheduled for the 17th time for Wednesday, at the single bench of Justice Gyanendra Bahadur Karki.
The writ petition has not so far been scheduled for hearings only at the single bench of Justice Baidyanath Upadhyaya, one of the 11 justices, including the officiating chief justice.
Advocate Acharya had filed the petition on March 17, arguing that in approving the ordinance on removing constitutional difficulties, the president had misused his powers relating to such an exercise, and this had affected the basic structure of the Interim Constitution.
President Ram Baran Yadav, Chairman of the Interim Election Council Regmi, UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepali Congress President Sushil Koiral, CPN-UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal and Bijay Kumar Gachchhadar of United Democratic Madhesi Front are named defendants in the writ petition.
Related story
Decree removing difficulties being discussed in House
