Lawyers and politicians have commented that the decision of the special court that Premkumar Rai, the head of the authority, protected himself and prosecuted selectively in the widebody aircraft purchase case, has confirmed the argument that retired employees should not be rushed to re-appointment.

The meeting led by Prem Kumar Rai, who is the chairman of the board of directors of the corporation as the secretary of tourism, started the controversial process of purchasing the ship by forming a sub-committee, which the special court called 'the beginning of corruption'. However, according to legal experts, there was no investigation against Rai, who became the head of the authority after retiring as Home Secretary, and cases were filed against others.

On 22 Chait 2080, the authority filed a case against 24 Nepali officials and 8 foreigners, including the then tourism minister Jeevan Bahadur Shahi, in a special court, concluding that there was corruption in the purchase of wide-body aircraft. Hearing on that, on 20 November 2081, the bench of special court chairman Teknarayan Kunwar and members Tejnarayan Singh Rai and Ritendra Thapa decided that there was corruption in the aircraft purchase case, in which 12 people were found guilty. 

Due to the corruption of 1 billion 47 million in the purchase of aircraft, the court has decided to collect a fine of 12 million 25 million from the guilty. The court is of the opinion that this procurement process has been completed as a continuation of the decision of the board of directors on 2nd May 2073 to form a widebody procurement sub-committee. The court has said otherwise that there is no prosecution against the initial decision-maker and the person at the level of ordering the operation of the

process. "Bringing someone under the scope of action and giving complete immunity to others involved in the same process is a danger of creating double standards in the justice system," the court commented. Based on the proposal recommended by the sub-committee formed by the committee chaired by Rai, the corporation issued a request for proposal (RPF) on 10 August 2073. It is said in the

judgment, "The process that started with the initial work, giving orders and giving approval seems to have turned into a purchase decision later."

Congress MP Dilendra Prasad Badu says that the comment made by the special court that Rai, the head of the authority, did not prosecute him in the same case and prosecuted other decision-makers, also shows the need for a 'cooling off period' for civil servants. "If they did not break the chain of appointments after the vacation, it was in their hands to decide who to sue and who not to sue," Badu said, "One way to control is cooling off period." He says that this was not seen in the fact that Rai had to say that he would not be involved in the decision-making process when he came to attach the file. "Rai should have resigned and paved the way for the investigation on the basis of ethics as I am the one who is in the place of criminal investigation against me, and I am also the subject of the investigation," says Kharel. He said that it is clear that this incident should not take the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting people who are in a decisive role.

According to Kharel, this incident shows the need to make the 'cooling off period' five years instead of two years. UML chief whip in the National Assembly, Gopal Bhattarai, says that the question arose when the intention of the appointment to the Constitutional Commission after retiring from the top level of the civil service was wrong.

He says that those who are appointed in that way cannot be stopped by imposing a 'cooling off period'. Those who go after cutting the cooling off period of two years can also do the same. It is a matter of intention and morality. Therefore, the matter of time bound does not affect such work," he says. Under the leadership of Bhattarai, UML has put an amendment in the National Assembly to remove the provision of 'cooling off period' from the Civil Bill.

Former Supreme Court judge Balaram KC has analyzed that the comments of the special court have raised ethical questions against Rai. "The special court has questioned the brutality of the head of the authority with an extraordinary courage, which is an important decision for the courts of Nepal," he says, "to show that faith and morality are not dead in this country, the illegal act of isolating oneself and suing others only for the same work should be stopped," KC said, "Otherwise, faith in justice cannot be maintained and the rule of law cannot be maintained." The court's question

The suggestion of the former president of the special court, Judge Gauri Bahadur Karki, is similar. "It would have been a different matter if he (Rai) had given the right to investigate himself in the widebody case and given that freedom to other commissioners of the authority and said that no evidence was found to prosecute," Karki said. Advocate Shambhu Thapa says that the work of the authority chief Rai should be reviewed. "The special court said that corruption started with the decision made by Rai as the chairman of the board of directors of the Air Services Corporation when he was the secretary of the Ministry of Tourism, which simply means that he should have been investigated and prosecuted," Thapa said, "But yesterday he decided as the secretary himself and today as the head of the authority he isolated himself and sued others. This cannot be under the rule of law."