Find alternative to futile polls, SC tells House

KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court today directed Speaker Subas Chandra Nembang and the Legislature Parliament, which also doubles as the Constituent Assembly to seek a suitable alternative to the ongoing futile prime ministerial elections.

A division bench of Justices Kalyan Shrestha and Girish Chandra Lal concluded there were three options before the Speaker and the House as the election process for the prime minister had proved fruitless despite 16 rounds.

The three options given by the apex court are: Declare the sole candidate Ram Chandra Paudel as the prime minister; seek fresh alternative to election; and review the provisions in the House Rules relating to prime ministerial election and take up a suitable provision to rescue the nation from political and constitutional impasse.

The bench, however, declined to issue a mandamus order to declare Paudel the new prime minister as per Rule 7 (5) of Constituent Assembly Rules 2008.

Stating that though it’s the parliament’s prerogative to give a new government as per Article 38 of the Constitution, the bench said it is not appropriate that the apex court should remain a mute spectator.

Given this situation, it ruled that parliament should find a way out of a futile process and directed the Speaker who also doubles as chairman of the Constituent Assembly as well as the Legislative Parliament to review the election process as per Rule 7 and find a solution.

The verdict came in relation to a Public Interest Litigation filed by advocates Prabhu Krishna Koirala and Chundamani Paudel seeking apex court intervention to declare Paudel the next PM.

“Even though futile rounds of election are against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the parliament as a counterpart of the apex court should give a proper result,” the bench observed.

While accepting the prime ministerial election is a serious political issue, the bench said it was also a constitutional issue. Therefore, it was natural to seek a constitutional solution through the apex court. But it observed that CA Rules had given a leading role to the Speaker, so he had to work on the available options for a result.

It also added the issue was not purely political as claimed by the Speaker in his explanation, so it was impossible for the apex court to escape a constitutional issue as it was the parliament’s duty to form the government. But, “The neutral role of the parties and their tendency of not being present during election has derailed the peace process and hope of drafting the constitution,” the apex court said.

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Find+alternative+to+futile+polls%2C+SC+tells+House&NewsID=265147