Pradhan's approval of the Election Commissioner: Aggrieved women's plea to MPs' discretion

Majority of the members of the Parliamentary Hearing Committee and within the party have serious differences regarding the approval of his name. However, it is also doubtful whether the Congress, UML and Maoist leadership will put forward the name of Pradhan against the constitutional arrangement and the sentiments of the hearing committee by showing the pressure of a 'so-and-so' person. But the leaders of the second level of the party and stakeholders have cautioned the leadership of the main party. Although Pradhan's hearing was over in the committee meeting held on Wednesday, the meeting was adjourned without taking any decision to accept or reject his name at the request of the party's top leaders.

While working in Nepal Law Society, Pradhan was in a physical relationship with a woman working in his office for a long time. After the relationship with that woman came into dispute, the settlement was settled on the basis of financial transactions, Pradhan himself has accepted. The woman has not only been under pressure after filing a complaint against the Prime Minister, raising the question of 'characterless', the constitutional provision has also increased pressure on the parliamentary committee saying that she is unfit to be appointed as the Commissioner of the Election Commission.

Former Chief Election Commissioner Bhojraj Pokharel comments that it is unfortunate that the parliamentary committee has to leave its sovereign authority in the hands of two/three party leaders. The parliamentary hearing committee has become a shadow of the party's main leader. This has made our parliament and committees extremely weak," says Pokharel. "There is no justification for a parliamentary committee of this status." The hearing committee should not act as if it were to be brushed aside instead of raising dust. They should decide by a majority of two-thirds that they do not recommend such a person, he is unfit,' said Casey. They are judges, now the judge will ask someone else to decide the case?'

UML chief whip Mahesh Bertaula, who is also a member of the parliamentary hearing committee, said that the allegation that the parliamentary committee could not make a decision by connecting the top leaders is wrong. There is no reason to add Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Oli and Prachanda to this. Which you have sent us to the hearing committee with confidence. The committee is able to make a decision with that confidence.

The suspicion that the leadership level is trying to shorten the 45 days for appointing the president has also become a topic of discussion within the political party. In the sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Federal Parliament Joint Meeting and Joint Committee (Operation of Work) Regulations 2080, there is a provision to be heard within 45 days and sent to the relevant body along with the decision of the committee for the proposed position. If the committee fails to provide its decision to the relevant body within that time, there will be no obstacle for the appointment of the post sent for hearing.

There is a provision that the recommendation made by the council can be rejected only by the vote of two-thirds of the parliamentarians of the hearing committee. Due to this arrangement of the law, the people recommended by the council are approved by the parliamentary hearing with some exceptions. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli had appointed 52 officers and members in various constitutional bodies without a parliamentary hearing in the previous term based on the rules of the parliament. Currently, the writ filed in the Supreme Court is still under consideration, saying that the matter is in conflict with the Constitution.

UML chief whip Bertaula claimed that this would not be the case when it was suspected that the president's name could be recommended for appointment using this loophole in the law, which is automatically approved if there is no hearing within 45 days. The propaganda that they are trying to approve after 45 days is not correct. "We will take the decision within the limits given by the constitution and the law, after hearing the complaint of the complainant, after hearing the proposed person," he said.

The constitution has fixed the eligibility criteria for the appointment of officials of the constitutional bodies. In which not only the basis of educational qualification but also the age limit and the person with high moral character is considered as the basis. Clause (6) of Article 245 of the Constitution has provided four grounds for the qualifications of the officers of the Constitutional Commission. In which it is mentioned that he has obtained a bachelor's degree from a recognized university, he is not a member of any political party at the time of appointment, he has completed 45 years of age and he has high moral character.

Congress MP Jeevan Pariyar, who is also a member of the hearing committee, said, "We have completed the hearing of the recommended person, whether to approve or not." She said no.

MP DP Aryal, who is also the deputy chairman of RSVP, said that the party's opinion will be clear in the upcoming meeting of the committee. He made it clear that the committee would not move to sidestep the issue of the chief, but would take a decision. A decision must be taken on this matter. We woke up to call a meeting for a decision," he said.

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

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 cut a lot. 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 themselves have become weak. If the leaders thought it would be unfair not 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 were forced to 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 committee's hearing?

The parliamentary committee was also limited to approving the recommendations made by the Constitutional Council, barring some exceptions. It was not possible for the hearing committee 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. There is no justification for a parliamentary committee in this position.

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. If qualified, capable and highly moral person is to be appointed in the constitutional body, public hearing process should be done before 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.