Let the Parliamentary Hearing Committee show discretion

Pradhan could not deny the allegation while responding to the questions asked by the parliamentarians in the parliamentary hearing special committee on Wednesday based on the complaint filed by the victim woman that she was sexually exploited and abused and later paid money for 'reconciliation'. Instead, he said that he would not respond to the "Milapatra" issue ahead of time. He insists that it should not be done legally. Legally he may be right, as he himself insists, but the question for him is moral. He can avoid it, MPs should not avoid it. The parliamentarians in the parliamentary hearing committee are not only listening to the president, but also listening to their own conscience.

In the complaint and information given to the committee, the victim had given 1 crore 25 lakh rupees saying that he would not report the sexual exploitation and abuse anywhere in the future. A photo of the check cut in the name of the victim on behalf of the President has also been submitted to the parliamentary committee. It is mentioned that from 2019 to 2022, Pradhan sexually abused and mistreated her, she was prevented from going to the police for a year when she tried to file a complaint, and they even tried to send her to jail by making a case of 'honey trap'. Although the victim filed a complaint in District Court Kathmandu on August 24, 2080 alleging that Pradhan had sexually abused her, within a week the court gave the final decision to settle the case. In view of Pradhan himself not being able to refute the allegations, there are ample grounds for him to fail the ethics test.

Article 245 of the Constitution of Nepal specifies the qualifications for the Election Commissioner in sub-section (6). In point (d) of which the condition 'having high moral character' has been placed. It is not advisable to think that parliamentarians cannot test whether the allegations against the president are compatible with this provision of the constitution. Because the victim can be bound by the thread of 'reconciliation' through persuasion, threat or any other means, but not the article of the constitution. This must be understood by the Pradhan himself, the visible or invisible powers that play a role in making him a commissioner and the MPs who are the final deciders of approval. This alone can ensure the dignity of the respective posts and the longevity of the constitution. The question of the moral character of the

protagonist is not just a matter of the past. It is also an important topic for the coming days. In the situation where he himself could not even deny the allegation that he had given money to 'Milapatra', his attitude seems to be that a powerful person is free to do anything and later the matter can be suppressed by some means. If he repeats the same attitude tomorrow even in his official position, the organization he represents will not have dignity. If approved by the Parliamentary Hearings Committee, he will be the Election Commissioner. Elections will be held in Nepal under his leadership. Parliament will be formed. Many parties will be formed, dissolved and mobilized. If the moral character of the person holding such a responsibility is questioned, the mentioned works will be thin on the scale of morality.

If the parliamentary hearing committee fails to give a decision by 45 days after the recommendation to the commissioner, i.e. on 17th July, Pradhan will be automatically appointed. Therefore, there is a suspicion that the parliamentarians will create a situation of automatic approval by cutting that deadline. MPs should not make such a mistake. They must fulfill their constitutional obligations. Also, one should be able to maintain the moral strength to defend one's decision publicly in the future.

The Constitutional Council recommends the appointment of a Pradhan or Pradhan-like person easily. In terms of balance of power and accountability, such appointments from the organization, which has mature officials, do not send a good message. Controversial recommendations have been made many times before. In July 2075, the parliamentary hearing committee itself rejected the appointment recommendation of Deepak Raj Joshi as the Chief Justice. This was the first objection of the Parliamentary Hearing Committee. After that, it was estimated that the Constitutional Council will also be under pressure and there will be a decrease in random recommendations. However, the subsequent Constitutional Council has also been recommending many controversial characters. In the case of Pradhan, the hearing committee can also alert the Constitutional Council by taking a prudent decision.