CJ asks- Why shouldn't cases against dissolution of House be taken to extended full bench?
Kathmandu, 15 January (2021) - Lawyers from the government side on Friday are presenting their arguments during the hearing on cases against dissolution of House of Representatives.
The cases are being heard at the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court.
Advocate Bishnu Bhattarai, arguing on behalf of the prime minister, said that constitutional bench can settle the current dispute.
Chief Justice (CJ) Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana asked, "There are demands for convening an extended full bench. Can that bench hear this case? It is a serious constitutional question. Why can't the case be taken to extended full bench?"
Responding to the question Advocate Bhattarai said, "The constitutional bench is convened on the orders of CJ on 23 December. Is that order wrong?"
CJ Rana said, "Fundamental thing is whether it is a serious constitutional matter or not."
Advocate Bhattarai said, "Article 137(3) of the constitution, despite other things, provides for serious constitutional interpretation by the constitutional bench. The provision of special bench in the past was also clearly mentioned in the constitution. Extended full bench was not convened in previous cases against House dissolution.
Covid-19 management: A herculean task for Nepal
"We are in dire need of a comprehensive legislation to deal with pandemics"
'National unity' led Qatar's resilience against the blockade imposed by neighbors - Yousuf Bin Mohamed, Qatar's Ambassador to Nepal [Interview]
COVID-19's impact on Dalit community in Nepal
Mediation in rape cases: Utterly unacceptable
Education during COVID-19: Is E-learning a good alternative?