They said the order was opposed to legal principle that a court must not entertain political desire or ambition while charging that the SC had weakened the dignity of the judiciary by issuing the order.
Speaking at an interaction program held at Reporters' Club in the capital city today, they argued the Constituent Assembly is a sovereign assembly able to undertake various sorts of agreements. Stating that the 16-point agreement was more political and less constitutional, they added that the responsibility of the decision to give it a proper direction rested with political parties and the CA.
On the occasion, Nepal Bar Association Chairman Hari Krishna Karki argued that the order made in haste over a subject enmeshed in a political dispute had plunged the court into a controversy.
"The court has again fallen into a controversy as a result of its attempt to move forward in a light manner over a serious subject by listening to one-way talks," he said, suggesting, "Now it will be wise for the political parties to adopt a legal path for quick and final decision on the subject through the Attorney General."
Constitutional expert Dr Chandra Kant Gyawali lambasted the SC order, saying if the SC were to issue such order by moving outside its jurisdiction then the Justices could as well be accountable to the people than the constitution.
Likewise, another constitutional expert Dr Bhimarjun Acharya said the SC order violated judicial restraint, threshold and appeared as a brash decision. He said it did not suit the dignity of the judiciary.
Democratic Lawyers Association Chairman Gopal Krishna Ghimire called for application in connection to the subject at the Attorney General for a quick final decision.
Meanwhile, Bijaya Kant Karna, who filed the writ petition seeking an interim order against the 16-point agreement called for endorsing the order of the SC which came at a time when the parties were seeking a fast-track method against the democratic values and norms and by venturing out of their responsibility.
Similarly, advocate Dipendra Jha, who fought the debate on behalf of the writ petitioner, said the allegations that the court was viewing the matter from a political eye -- when the agreement among the parties had already been endorsed by the CA -- as being sentimental statements. RSS
Related story
Kathmandu Regional Slam welcomes aspiring slam poets
