KATHMANDU, May 12: After a week-long delay, the Supreme Court (SC) has finally registered a writ petition against the appointment of former chief secretary Lokman Singh Karki as chief commissioner of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA).
Advocate Om Prakash Aryal moved the apex court Sunday after Justice Ram Kumar Prasad Shah on Friday dismissed the SC administration´s refusal to register the writ petition stating that it lacked due process. [break]
Aryal has also filed a supplementary writ petition at the SC urging the court to scrap the Constitutional Council´s (CC) decision to appoint Karki and to relieve him from the post of CIAA chief commissioner.
The writ petitioner has also asked the apex court to stop Karki from working in the capacity of CIAA chief until final verdict on the issue stating that his appointment is ´unconstitutional´ and even against an earlier order of the SC.
Aryal has argued that Karki is not competent for the post stating that he lacks the required experience of 20 years. He has maintained that the CC move is also against the 11-point agreement of March 13 which states that the Interim Election Council, which has been formed only to hold fresh polls, will not take any decision that will have long-term impact.
The writ petitioner has urged the SC to issue an order that no individual who is found to be involved in suppressing a mass movement or in human rights violation, will be eligible to hold a public post in future.
The apex court is scheduled to conduct a hearing on the petition Wednesday.
Amid strong objection from various quarters, President Ram Baran Yadav had appointed Karki as the CIAA chief last Sunday as per the recommendation made by the CC.
Last Monday, SC Registrar Lohit Chandra Shah had ordered the apex court administration to return the writ petition to the petitioner stating that the apex court will take a decision regarding the issue only when the petitioner approaches the court after completing processes in keeping with the earlier SC order.
A special bench of justices Kalyan Shrestha, Girish Chandra Lal and Sushila Karki on December 20, 2012 had ordered that a PIL petitioner should file an application before the authority or institution concerned to get them to address his/her issue prior to filing any writ petition, and if the issue is not addressed, the petitioner should come up with evidence thereof and inform them about the writ petition move.
A division bench of justices Lal and Tarka Raj Bhatta had stated on April 29 that there cannot be any dispute that a recommendation by the CC for appointment to a post should be as per Article 119 (5) of the Interim Constitution and Clause 5 of the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties, Powers and Procedures) Act, 2066.
According to Article 119 (5) (e) of the Interim Constitution, a person will not be eligible to be appointed as chief commissioner or commissioner unless he/she has a sound moral character.
Similarly, as per Clause 5 of the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties, Powers and Procedures) Act, 2066, the council shall, while recommending a person for appointment to any constitutional body, set out the qualifications as mentioned in the Constitution and prevailing laws, and the reasons and grounds for the recommendation.
Likewise, the council shall, while recommending a person pursuant to Sub-section (1), shall consider matters including his/her social prestige, sound moral character, honesty, the public´s attitude toward him/her and his/her previous service, if any, and professional experience.
The president´s office, Chairman of the Interim Election Council Khil Raj Regmi, the CC, the CIAA and Karki himself are named as defendants in the writ petition.
Related story
Writ petition filed against Rabi Lamichhane
