Pleading before the special bench chaired by Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi and including senior SC Justices Top Bahadur Magar, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Ram Kumar Prasad Shah and Kalyan Shrestha, constitutional experts said that the legislature does not enjoy the right to amend the interim constitution and then extend the CA´s term for an indefinite number of times.[break]
"Amending the interim constitution in a bid to extend the CA´s term is not an unlimited power of parliament," said constitutional expert Purna Man Shakya, adding, "Parliament can amend the constitution and extend the CA´s term but only while abiding by the basic structure of the interim constitution."
Shakya argued that the SC´s verdict delivered on May 25, 2011 regarding the CA´s term extension cannot be accepted as a precedent. "SC ruling on May 25 failed to endorse or nullify the extended one year of the CA term thus that ruling cannot be accepted as a precedent" he said, adding, "Interpretation of the CA´s two-year fixed term initially enshrined in the interim constitution is still open."
Constitutional lawyer Shakya, however, said that the issue of whether parliament can amend and subsequently extend the CA´s term is a matter of judicial review. "The apex court can nullify parliament´s decision to amend the interim constitution and extend the CA term if the latter fails to promulgate a new constitution citing various reasons but keeps amending the interim constitution one time after another," he opined.
Attorney General Dr Yubraj Sangroula and Deputy Government Attorney Dharma Raj Paudel pleaded before the bench of behalf of the government. Lawyers Baburam Dahal and Govinda Paudel, who were appointed by the Prime Minister´s Office (PMO), also pleaded before the bench while Shakya advocated on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association as part of an amicus curie.
In Tuesday´s pleadings, AG Sangroula argued that there is no restriction on the CA amending the interim constitution.
Hearing on case against cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane today