A five-member special bench comprising Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi and seniormost justices Top Bahadur Magar, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Ram Kumar Prasad Sah and Kalyan Shrestha issued a verdict to this effect, citing the doctrine of necessity.[break]
Tossing out the writ petition, which claimed that the extended three- month of CA term was unconstitutional, the bench maintained that there has been some progress in the constitution writing process and that the court is not convinced with the writ petitioners´ argument for the dissolution of the CA.
Advocate Balkrishna Neupane and Bharat Jangam had jointly filed a writ petition demanded that the Supreme Court declare the extended term of the CA unconstitutional. They were of the view that the CA has no existence following the SC verdict issued some three months ago.
“The parties have been able to sort out a number of contentious issues and there has been some remarkable progress in the constitution writing,” states the verdict, adding, “In this context, the bench doesn´t agree with the writ petitioners´ argument that extended three-month term of the CA should be declared null and void.”
Asked to interpret the SC verdict, constitutional expert Dr Bhimarjun Acharya said, “The apex court has implied that the extended term of CA was constitutional.”
Citing the verdict issued by a five-member special bench on May 25, 2011, the SC bench further clarified that the CA decision to amend the interim constitution for the ninth time and subsequently extend its term for additional three months was appropriate under the principle of doctrine of necessity.
“The bench sticks to the apex court´s May 25 ruling regarding CA term extension,” reads the SC verdict, adding, “The decision to amend the interim constitution and extend CA term in future will be a matter of judicial review.”
The SC on May 25 had said that the CA term can be extended only for six months.
“The term of the CA can be extended for six months as per Article 64 of the interim constitution if there is a state of emergency in the country,” reads the verdict issued on May 25, adding, “If there is no state of emergency and if the CA feels an urgency to extend its term under the principle of doctrine of necessity, the term can be extended but not for more than six months.”
The bench had said that it would be considered a breach of constitutional provisions if any attempt is made by the CA to extend its term for more than six months or extend it time and again. The apex court had said that the issue of CA term extension would be a matter of judicial review.
Related story
30-month term extension recommended for Joint Project Office on...
