The writ petitions have challenged the president´s orders on removing constitutional difficulties and appointing Khil Raj Regmi as chief of the Interim Election Council.
Lawyers on Thursday aired differing views at a discussion at a special bench of all 10 justices including the acting chief justice. The bench comprised Acting Chief Justice Damodar Prasad Sharma and Justices Ram Kumar Prasad Shah, Kalyan Shrestha, Girish Chandra Lal, Sushila Karki, Prakash Wasti, Baidya Nath Upadhyaya, Tarka Raj Bhatta, Gyanendra Bahadur Karki and Bharat Bahadur Karki.[break]
Though the SC was scheduled to conduct hearings on 24 writ petitions from August 1, the special bench has now ordered hearings on seven of the petitions which are related to the presidential orders and were filed since March 14. Regmi was appointed chairman of the Interim Election Council on March 14 following President Ram Baran Yadav´s orders on removing the constitutional hurdles. The other 17 writ petitions were filed before the formation of the Interim Election Council.
The seven writ petitions have been filed separately by Advocates Chandra Kant Gyawali, Kanchan Krishna Neupane, Gopal Shiwakoti, Subhas Acharya, Bharat Mani Jangam and Chairman of Lok Kalyankari Janata Party Kishori Mahato, and Amar KC of Nepal Rastriya Loktantrik Dal.
Lawyers are divided over whether or not the defendant justices should preside over the hearings as Sharma became Acting Chief Justice and Shah became senior-most justice because of the presidential order on removing constitutional difficulties and Wasti, Upadhyaya, Bhatta, Gyanendra Bahadur Karki and Bharat Bahadur Karki were appointed temporary justices as the presidential order also paved the way for their appointment without parliamentary hearings.
During the discussions, Attorney General (AG) Dron Raj Regmi argued that it would be better if the five temporary justices did not preside over the hearings as they were appointed to their posts because of the presidential order on removing the constitutional difficulties.
Former president of Nepal Bar Association (NBA) Biswakant Mainali maintained that he has never seen a bench in the country comprising an even number of justices conduct hearings since 1990.
Responding to Mainali, Acting Chief Justice Sharma said the move was made as the issue was of national importance and a serious constitutional matter. “I would have formed a bench of 15 justices if there were 15 justices,” Sharma added.
Former NBA president Shambhu Thapa stated that there would be no problem if the temporary justices presided over the hearings. “We want the SC to interpret the present legal chaos,” he said.
Former AG Yubraj Sangraula argued that the SC must set out the terms of reference (ToR) for conducting hearings on the petitions. He stressed that temporary justices could preside over the petition hearings.
Advocate Sushil Pant argued that Sharma, Shah and the temporary justices could not preside over hearings on the petitions as they are beneficiaries of the presidential order on removing constitutional hurdles.
Likewise, Advocate Ram Narayan Bidari stated that the defendant justices could not preside over hearings on the petitions.
Related story
Parliamentary hearings of six candidates proposed for SC justic...
_20240311121839.jpg)
