Supreme Court verdict

A Supreme Court (SC) verdict handed down on Thursday has ended a 16-month-long constitutional and political controversy surrounding President Dr Ram Baran Yadav´s move to block the decision taken by the then Maoist-led government to dismiss Army Chief Rookmangud Katawal. Though many believe that the verdict refrained from testing the constitutionality of the president’s step, it has, for the first time, said that the head of the state does not have special immunities and discretionary powers on issues related to public matters. We believe that the verdict has not only saved the institution of the president from facing an uncomfortable situation, it has also made clear that the institution needs to be accountable for the steps that it takes in the future.

We do understand that the two-year-old institution in the world’s youngest republic is still in need of a lot of legal and constitutional arrangements. Though the interim constitution has laid down what the ceremonial president can and cannot do, the constitutional provisions are not enough. The country is yet to enact laws defining the duties and responsibilities of the head of the state. The presidential move that sparked the controversy could have been avoided had there been such laws.

Having said that, the SC’s precedent-setting verdict that every move of the president can be reviewed by a court of law is a matter of concern in the sense that such a provision can frequently drag the institution into controversies. An institution that is often dragged into controversies cannot be a symbol of national unity, something that the interim constitution envisages.

It is also surprising to note that the SC’s verdict remained silent on whether or not the president can reject decisions taken by the council of ministers citing it unconstitutional. Those who support the president’s move argue that Dr Yadav blocked the sacking of Katawal to prevent implementation of an unconstitutional decision by the council of ministers. In its verdict, the court only said that the decisions of the cabinet should be within the purview of the constitution and laws.

The government should now take steps to formulate laws that are required to institutionalize the institution of the president. The government must understand that a strong institution of the president will greatly help in strengthening the roots of our hard-earned republic.

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=23897