The writ petitioner and the government lawyer argued on Sunday before a bench of Supreme Court Justices Saranga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel. Attorney General Bhandari herself came to argue.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The writ petition filed against Attorney General Savita Bhandari Baral's decision to amend the chargesheet against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane and others related to money laundering and organized crime has been kept under review after the debate on Sunday was not completed. The bench has kept the writ pending for Monday due to lack of time.
The writ petitioner and the government lawyer argued on Sunday in the bench of Supreme Court Justices Saranga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel. Attorney General Bhandari herself came to argue. Senior advocates Tikaram Bhattarai, Dinesh Tripathi, Surendra Bhandari and Anupam Bhattarai, among others, argued on behalf of the writ petitioner. Claiming that the Attorney General withdrew the case under the guise of amending the charge sheet, they argued that the Supreme Court should intervene judicially. They claimed that recognizing this would be the beginning of the Attorney General's practice of abusing his power.
Attorney General Bhandari argued immediately after the writ petitioner's argument. She defended her decision, claiming that the amendment of the charge sheet was allowed due to political vendetta and additional evidence. According to Supreme Court spokesperson Arjun Koirala, the bench had proposed to conclude the case on Monday 'in hindsight', saying that time had not run out after Attorney General Baral's argument.
Now, a team including Deputy Attorney General Sanjiv Raj Regmi will argue on behalf of the government, while senior advocates Sushil Kumar Pant, Raman Kumar Shrestha and advocate Dipendra Jha are preparing to argue on behalf of Lamichhane.
Attorney General Bhandari had decided on 30 Paush 2082 to amend the charge sheet so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'wealth laundering' in the cases filed against Lamichhane in the Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi and Parsa district courts would no longer stand. In that decision, the argument was presented that Lamichhane was charged on the basis of political vendetta and that the interests of savers should be given priority.
In the writ filed by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, law students Ayush Badal and Yubaraj Poudel, it has been demanded to quash the decision of the Attorney General's Office, calling it 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary'. The writ petitioner claims that even though Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code was used as the basis for the amendment of the charge, it is in practice an act of ‘withdrawal of the case’. The writ argues that the decision was a ‘fraudulent use of law’ when Section 116 of the Code prohibits the withdrawal of a case related to money laundering.
The writ states that granting immunity in serious economic crimes like money laundering could put Nepal on the blacklist of the International Financial Action Task Force, causing irreparable damage to the country. It has also been argued that amending the charge in cases like organized crime and money laundering that cannot be settled will deprive thousands of savers of their right to justice.
Before the debate began in the bench on Sunday morning, Senior Advocate Surendra Bhandari raised a question saying that Justices Subedi and Pokharel should not hear the dispute. There was a discussion on the question raised on the bench for about half an hour. After that, Senior Advocate Bhattarai began the debate after the judge said that he would hear the case.
