But the apex court did not register the petitions, citing time constraints. “We couldn’t register the review petitions today (Monday) due to time constraints for studying national and international precedents and constitutional, judicial and legal practices,” said SC Joint-Registrar Nahakul Subedi.[break]
The parliament secretariat and the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (OPMCM) on behalf of the government, registered separate petitions at the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on Monday, and the OAG promptly reached the SC to register the petitions.
Sources at the SC said the court may register the petitions on Tuesday.
Three grounds
In its petition, parliament has given three grounds on which it has sought a review, terming the apex court verdict an erroneous one.
First, parliament has argued that the verdict is an infringement upon its jurisdiction for amending the constitution. It has said that the legislature-parliament is competent enough to amend any of the articles, including Article 164, of the constitution, that Article 148 has clearly said this, and there was no room for any other interpretation.
“This verdict is contravening of the precedents established by the respected Supreme Court that say there shouldn’t be any forced interpretation of any constitutional or legal provisions or any issuing of a verdict through erroneous exercise of jurisdiction,” reads the petition.
Secondly, it has said the Supreme Court went beyond the demands of the petitioners while passing the verdict.
It said that while the petitioners had only demanded that the SC nullify the 10th amendment to the constitution effected to extend the CA term for the third time, the apex court instead ordered the CA chairman, the Government of Nepal and the OPMCM to make arrangements to hold new elections for the CA or a referendum or any other arrangement as per the constitution even though the petitioners hadn’t demanded any of that.
Parliament said the SC’s latest verdict on the CA term, in going beyond the petitioners’ demand, contravenes the precedents established by the apex court itself.
Thirdly, parliament’s petition has claimed that the SC has acted against the principle that the judiciary needs to exercise self-restraint on political issues on which a judicially manageable and discoverable standard cannot be applied “As per the principle of judicial self-restraint, the SC shouldn’t enter into areas of political relevancy or adequacy.
The court’s bench can never make a political evaluation that needs to be done by periodic popular elections,” parliament’s petition said. It said the SC has ordered the holding of a re-election of the CA even though the constitution has not envisioned any such thing and the SC directed the government to conduct a referendum even though that step needs to be decided by a two-thirds majority of the CA.
“There is a risk that such a verdict may disturb the constitutional balance based on the principle of separation of powers and checks and balance and may eventually invite an unnecessary conflict and clash among the state organs,” reads the petition.
Parliament has also cited the political consequences that may arise due to the verdict and that may go beyond the control and competence of the judiciary.
New bench to take up review petition
Officials said that new justices, who are not involved in issuing the latest verdict on CA term extension, will be chosen while constituting a larger bench to take up the review petitions.
The interim constitution has barred justices handing down the previous judgement from making a review of the judgement. “The Supreme Court may review its own judgments or final orders subject to such conditions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by law. Judges other than those having handed down the previous judgment shall make such review,” reads Article 107 (4) of the interim constitution.
‘Petition not for term extension’
Officials at the parliament secretariat said the review was not sought to create grounds for another term extension of the CA. Claiming that the new statute can be promulgated in the remaining time, CA Chairman Subas Nembang urged one and all not to link the filing of the petitions with the tenure of the CA.
“We sought the review of the verdict because the issues that have arisen with the verdict need to be settled at this time,” said Nembang.
Parliament had earlier taken the consent of the major political parties before forwarding the petition to the SC.
Related story
Salaries and allowances of Speaker, Deputy Speaker withheld unt...
