Look how the country’s lawyers, eminent ones albeit, have taken the Supreme Court fresh verdict, May 25, 2011, made as regards the tenure of the already decayed Constituent Assembly.
No comments henceforth.
No emergency for Charter draft
Bishwa Kant mainali, Senior Advocate, Nepal
If there is political consensus among the major parties then a special bench of the Apex Court comprising of some more Justices can facilitate the way for the extension of the CA body if a fresh writ petition is filed. But while extending the CA tenure, no emergency orders could be imposed or should be declared. The constitution can’t be drafted if emergency is in place. For the imposition of emergency, the nation must have some problems in the security and the financial sector to which it is not as such at the moment. If the CA tenure is to be extended for six months then there is no need at all for effecting amendments in the constitution. For this the current CA body can just propose. That would be enough. The fresh SC verdict is more or less aimed at the CA tenure extension.
SC should interpret the Charter but not talk of revision
Ek Raj Bhandari, Advocate, Nepal
The fresh verdict, May 25, 2011, of the Supreme Court of Nepal has over ruled the SC previous decision that the CA tenure can be made only after a state of emergency is declared.
The previous SC bench comprising of three justices had stated that the CA body will remain intact as long as the constitution is not drafted.
But the fresh verdict which states that at best the CA tenure could only be extended for six months which has thus overruled the previous SC decision. This has added some ambiguity. Yet the SC verdict is not at all aimed against the CA extension. All that it wants to say is that the CA body can be extended for six months period provided there is the declaration of emergency in the country.
I think the fresh SC verdict talks more of revision in the constitution than what it should have talked of the interpretation of the constitution. The SC is for interpretation of the constitution. But it appears to have talked more on the revision of the constitution to which it should have not.
SC verdict is against CA tenure extension
Radheshyam Adhikari, Senior Advocate, NepalThe SC fresh decision made, May 25, 2011, is pretty rigid as regards the CA tenure extension. But yet if there is a political consensus then the CA tenure can be extended. If there is a political consensus then there could be no problem in extending the CA tenure, however, if there is no political consensus as such then as per the fresh SC verdict, it is very very difficult to extend the Constituent Assembly tenure.
The verdict talks of the possibility of the CA extension only if emergency is declared. This has created immense confusion.
The verdict is not at all aimed at allowing the CA body to go in for yet another extension.
CA extension can be made only in emergency
Sambhu Thapa, Senior Advocate, Nepal
A great question mark has been raised on the existence of the Constituent body itself.
The SC in its fresh verdict clearly states that the CA extension can be made only if the country is declared in a state of emergency. This has added more confusion as regards the CA body. The SC verdict appears not to have been aimed in favour of the CA extension.