CA to automatically expire in 6 months: SC

KATHMANDU, Nov 26: Issuing a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday said that the term of the Constituent Assembly (CA) would automatically expire after six months.

The apex court has ordered the CA to become serious, act on public aspirations and the apex court verdict and promulgate a new constitution within the next six months. [break]

"If the CA fails to promulgate the new constitution within the next six months, its term would automatically end after six months," reads the verdict.

The verdict was issued by a special bench of the SC comprising Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi and Justices Damodar Prasad Sharma, Ram Kumar Prasad Shah, Kalyan Shrestha and Prem Sharma.

Speculating that the government may extend the CA term more then six months following the SC verdict issued Friday, the special bench has also explained to what extent the CA can extend its term from now onwards. As per the verdict, the CA cannot extend its term for more than six months through a 10th amendment to the interim constitution.

"The bench hereby orders that the CA can extend its term for one last time based on the proviso incorporated in Article 64 of the interim constitution," reads the verdict. Article 64 has a proviso that the CA can extend its term for a maximum of six months only if the CA fails to give a new constitution within two years of the initial term.

The apex court has also ordered the CA to wind itself up only by providing some alternative. As per the verdict, the CA, if it fails to give a constitution and has to wind itself up, should have provided the alternatives of either going for a referendum or for another CA election as per Article 63 of the interim constitution or some other appropriate arrangement.

The SC said that the chairman of the CA and the Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (OPMCM) should have arranged for alternatives before CA expires.

CA asked to promulgate constitution within six months

CA allowed to extend term for six months as last chance under a proviso of Article 64

CA asked to provide alternatives-- referendum, fresh CA elections or some other appropriate arrangement before it expires

CA found not giving priority to constitution making, insensitive towards public aspiration

SC says its pervious verdicts on term extension were largely unheeded, undermined by the CA

In more serious conclusions, the SC said in its verdict that it´s previous verdicts concerning the CA term were largely unheeded and undermined by the CA. "The CA is found to have seriously undermined the SC´s previous verdicts regarding CA term extension and the public aspiration for promulgation of a new constitution through the CA," states the verdict, adding, "It has been widely felt that the CA has also made a mockery of constitutionalism, rule of law and governance accountable to the people."

The SC said that it gave enough time and space to the CA through its previous verdicts to do its work and provide a new constitution. "Despite the opportunities given by the SC to work on promulgating the constitution, the CA is found not to have given serious attention to accomplishing its task. It has been found that the constitution making process couldn´t be prioritized inside the CA," the verdict further states.

The special bench said the public aspiration to have a new constitution promulgated through the CA and the SC´s verdict issued in the past asking the CA to accomplish its task without extending its term time and again, were completely undermined.

"The bench, however, feels that it would be appropriate to give the CA a last chance to extend its term for another six months, considering the sensitivity of the investment made in forming the CA in the first place, public expectations towards it and some tangible progress made by it as of today in the course of drafting a new constitution," the verdict reads.

The SC said that its previous verdicts involving CA term extension were issued on the basis of the doctrine of necessity.

"Despite our previous verdicts giving enough time and space to the CA to promulgate a new constitution, the CA has failed to assure the public that it can give a constitution and also sort out confusions in the course of writing a new constitution," the bench said.

The apex court further clarified that it felt it needed to guide stakeholders engaged in the constitution drafting process, saying that it did not see the CA being serious and sensitive towards framing the constitution.

Advocate Bal Krishna Neupane and Bharat Jangam had jointly filed a writ petition at the SC against the CA´s decision to amend the interim constitution for a ninth time and extend its term for a further three months.