SC ruling on CA term: OAG readies application draft
- Cites three precedents for verdict review
The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has drafted a legal paper challenging the very grounds based on which the Supreme Court refused to review its earlier decision that put a cap on the extension of Constituent Assembly term.
The draft application — soon to be registered in the SC challenging its refusal of the review petition — was prepared on behalf of the government, which has accused the judiciary of breaching the principle of power balance through the “intrusive” ruling.
In the draft application forwarded to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on 29 December, the OAG has cited three precedents that show the court could review the final decisions of its full bench. The apex court administration on December 27 had refused to register the review applications filed separately by the government and the parliament arguing that “the final verdict given by the full bench” cannot be reviewed.
The OAG has cited the case of Maj Gen (Rtd) Pradeep Pratap Bam Malla. Malla had moved the apex court after then government in 2006 did not extend his tenure by two more years as per the law. The SC full bench had ordered his reinstatement. The Ministry of Defence had filed an application for the review against the court decision. However, the application was registered in the SC then.
Another precedent cited is the review application filed by advocate Dhurba Koirala against the SC verdict to uphold the decision of the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government, asking then king Gyanendra Shah to dissolve the parliament in 2002. This application was also registered in the apex court.
The third precedent is the registration of the application filed by the Department of Inland Revenue, Bharatpur, some two years ago against the apex court verdict issued by the full bench against Shree Distillery. These three precedents cited by the OAG directly counter the ones presented by the court.
The apex court administration had cited three precedents including that of advocate Bijaya Raj Shakya who had sought to file a review application against the decision of the special bench led by Justice Balram KC on the CA term extension. The court administration had refused to register Shakya’s application. After Shakya filed re-application, a single bench of the court had upheld the administration’s move.
Posted on: 2012-01-05 07:36
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
