Supreme Court issues notice over move to form Chief Justice-led election govt News
During the preliminary hearing of a writ challenging the proposal, Justice Sushila Karki issued the order demanding that the defendants, including President Ram Baran Yadav, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, Maoist chief Prachanda and four major political parties, furnish a written explanation within nine days (by March 5).
Our Chairperson Advocate Bharat Jangam had filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court last week challenging the decision of four major political parties — UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML and United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) — to form a government headed by Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi.
A single bench of Justice Karki asked the defendants to furnish their clarification by March 5, in response to the writ petition filed by Jangam, who argued that the decision made by the four major political parties was against the spirit of Interim Constitution and would encroach on the independence of judiciary.
Some fringe pasties including CPN-Maoist, the break away faction of UCPN-Maoist have also opposed the decision to form the election government under the Chief Justice.
As per today's court ruling, the final verdict on the petition will be issued following a discussion on March 7 in front of a special bench after the defendants furnish their written clarification.
Lawyers say though the apex court did not issue a stay order, today’s decision will force the chief justice to think twice before accepting the post of chief executive of an interim election government.
“This order is more than the stay order. The apex court itself has put a question mark on the constitutionality of the parties’ decision,” said Nepal Bar Association Vice-chairman Tikaram Bhattarai, who had pleaded on behalf of petitioner Bharat Mani Jangam. “How can the CJ go against the order of the apex court itself,” he wondered. During the hearing, lawyers argued that the offer to CJ was against Article 106 of the Interim Constitution and breached independence of the judiciary. They also argued that the offer undermines the separation of powers and checks and balances developed in Marbury vs Madison case by the US Supreme Court, based on which Nepal’s state organs have been functioning.