E-Kantipur

KATHMANDU, DEC 29 - The Supreme Court's refusal to review its ruling on term extension of the Constituent Assembly has generated mixed reactions from the legal and the political fraternities.

While most of the political leaders have raised eyebrows at what they call the judiciary's uncalled-for activism on matters which are entirely political and beyond its jurisdiction, many in the legal fraternity claim that if the parties believe in the constitutional supremacy they cannot grumble about the court ruling that calls for timely promulgation of the constitution. While law experts argue there is no ground to criticise the court for not allowing them to extend the CA indefinitely, leaders argue the court cannot dictate the term and mandate of the legislature.

CPN-UML Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal termed the court's refusal to register the revision petition as 'unfortunate' and an attempt to deny justice. "The court is a place of worship for any one having faith in judiciary. It should always keep its doors open," said Khanal at Wednesday's meeting of the dispute resolution subcommittee under the CA. "If the court shuts down its doors, it is unfortunate," he said, adding that the parties will uphold the principle of power separation between the executive, legislative and judiciary while drafting the new constitution.

Taking serious exception to the court's refusal to review its ruling, Minister for Law and Justice Brijesh Kumar Gupta remarked at the Reporter's Club that the court intervened in affairs, which are beyond its jurisdiction. "Will the court share the blame if the constitution cannot be made within six months and some additional time is required?"

Some leaders, including UML leader Pradeep Gyawali, also argued that the court's activism helped those advocating for a controlled judiciary and this could trigger a proxy war between the legislature and the judiciary. "The situation resulting from the court intervention could also encourage those who would like to derail the process of the peace and constitution."

Prime Minister's Chief Political Advisor Devendra Poudel argued it was none of the judiciary's business to say how the constitution should be made and within what time. He also accused the judiciary of doing politics.

Tarai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) Chairman Mahanta Thakur condemned the court move and said it challenged the supremacy of the parliament. "The SC decision has called for a fresh conflict in the country," said Thakur, at a different function in the Capital on Wednesday. 

However, many of the law experts begged to differ from what the leaders have been saying.

Chairman of the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) Prem Bahadur Khadka defended the court move. He maintained that if the parties believed in constitutional supremacy they should abide by the court's decision. If the parties have accepted the court decision on CA extension, they should abide by it and not panic for the refusal to overturn the ruling.

Khadka also clarified that both the government and the legislature can re-apply seeking review of the decision and that the court has always kept the doors open.

Constitution expert Bhimarjun Acharya said both the legislature and the government tried to intimidate the court by forwarding review applications through the Speaker and the Prime Minister.

Earlier on Tuesday, the court turned down the government appeal stating that there was no legal ground for a review of its ruling on CA term extension.

 

Posted on: 2011-12-29 05:00

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.