Pleading before the bench, Attorney General Dr Yubaraj Sangraula argued that the apex court before arriving at a verdict should be aware whether its decision impedes legislative rights.[break]
"The SC shouldn´t cross its parameters as the issue of CA term extension is purely a political one," he said, adding, "The SC decision should facilitate in removing obstacles that have surfaced in the course of drafting new constitution rather then deepening the rifts between the legislative and the court itself."
He also opined that the SC should come up with a verdict thereby ensuring and respecting the rights of other institutions.
"I don´t mean that the SC´s jurisdiction should be curtailed," he said, adding, "However, the apex court must be sensitive in ensuring others´ rights,"
Dr Sangraula raised mainly two issues while pleading before the bench. According to him, the two key questions --first, whether the apex court enjoys or doesn´t enjoy the right of judicial review over the legislative measures. And, second, whether the SC can declare null and void the CA´s decision to amend Article 64 before extending the CA´s term for one year and three months.
According to Dr Sangraula, the SC cannot deliver two different decisions at the same issue. "If the SC acquiesces the amendment to the Interim Constitution and subsequent extension of the CA´s term by one year and three months, then the court has to accept CA´s decision to extend its term in future as well," he added, "If SC says that CA erred in amending Interim Constitution and subsequently extending its term for one year and three months in the past, we have understand the situation to mean that the CA does not in fact exist at present."
Attorney General Dr Sangraula is pleading in detail on the issue on Tuesday.
Following an SC order, the Nepal Bar Association has appointed three advocates -- Badri Bahadur Karki, Hari Krishna Karki and Mukti Pradhan -- as part of amicus curie to assist the apex court in the case.
Only three months back, a five-member Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Regmi had ruled that the original term of the CA is for two years and could be extended for a maximum of six months only under conditions of emergency, or under the doctrine of necessity.
Writ petitioners lawyer Bal Krishna Neupane and Bharat Jangam had filed the writ petition after CA extended its term for three months even after SC verdict. They have been arguing that there is no existence of CA following SC verdict issued three months ago. Constitutional experts Bhimarjun Acharya and Chandrakanta Gywali have been pleading on behalf of writ petitioners while government has appointed senior advocate Bishwakanta Mainali to plead in the case.
"The two years of fix mandate of the CA enshrined in the Interim Constitution with the ratification of people cannot be extended under any pretext," said Dr Acharya, adding, "The SC should come up with a decision taking this provision into account."
The Office of the Attorney General has formed a nine-member panel to defend the government on the matter. The Supreme Court Bar Association has selected lawyers Purnaman Shakya and Tikaram Bhattari as amicus curie to plead in the case.
Related story
SC continues final hearings on Karki case
