"There is no justification for parliamentary committees to cover the faces of the leaders"

The Human Rights Commission has already given instructions to the relevant bodies with the ruling that the Prime Minister is unfit to be appointed to the Constitutional Commission, and it has also become a civil society issue. In this context, Kantipur's conversation with former Chief Election Commissioner Bhojraj Pokharel :

How do you view the controversy of Krishnaman Pradhan proposed as a member of the Election Commission?

It is not good to speak without knowing the details of the inner part of the controversy. However, after the controversy came to the surface, it was a matter of thinking and deciding on one's own self. Many things are visible after the mud has been poured. Little by little, you should have thought about it, you should have thought for yourself, even that situation is no longer visible.

The parliamentary committee should have taken a view and given a decision. In that too, they have pointed the mouths of the leaders. Due to this situation, the parliamentary committees have become weak. If the leaders thought that it would be unfair to do it to him (Krishnaman Pradhan), then they had to do it. Otherwise, it was discussed in the committee, they had to decide. It is wrong not to decide by yourself and to seek help from other leaders. If the

committee is unable to make an independent decision, shouldn't the question be raised about its justification?

The purpose of holding parliamentary hearings is basically to balance the nominations made by the president in the presidential system. Parliament hearing means filtering out the wrong people if they are being appointed. If the Constitutional Council had not allowed the bullies, there would have been no need for a parliamentary hearing.

The system in which the power and opposition, the speaker, the president of the national assembly and the head of the court are also members of the council is a balance in itself. However, in practice, the members sitting in the council had to impose a share. It's not just about the party, everyone has to find their own part. Since it is not important who sent which person, the practice of keeping silent, I am silent and recommending whoever is out of pocket was established.

When the Constitutional Council recommends the wrong person, should it not be stopped from the hearing of the committee?

The Parliamentary Committee was also limited to approving the recommendations made by the Constitutional Council, barring some exceptions. The hearing committee was not able to study how the name was recommended and filter it from the hearing. The parliamentary hearing committee has become the shadow of two or three prominent leaders of the parties. became very weak. In this position, there is no justification for a parliamentary committee.

Do you think that there is no need to have a parliamentary committee if people from similar backgrounds are to be approved?

teams have quietly recommended that you have it, and I have it too. In order to appoint qualified, capable and highly moral person in the constitutional body, the process of public hearing should be done before the recommendation from the council.

What do you think the parliamentary hearing will decide in the case of Krishnaman Pradhan? Let's not get into the

person, but it's time for the Parliamentary Hearings Committee to establish its justification for whether it is necessary. The decision to make now also further confirms whether the committee is justified when the situation arises.

In your opinion, the parliamentary committee has become a shadow of some party leaders, does it mean that the parliamentary committee is run by the decisions taken by them?

We brought a parliamentary sovereign system. We said that in the constitution. But our sovereign power could not remain in Parliament. It must have gone to two or three party leaders. Neither any parliamentarian could speak freely, nor did the parliament say 'we are the deciding authority' He was able to make an independent decision. They discuss some things in the

committee, They say that the opinion of the leaders should be taken to see if something has happened. It is my point of view that the parliamentary committee has no justification if it is said like this. In the current developments, the news came that the parliamentary committee will once again discuss with the leaders and make a decision. If that is to be done, then what is the meaning of the parliamentary committee? We are not trying to create parliaments and committees that depend on a few prominent leaders.