Earlier, a bench of Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel had ordered the file to be sent after hearing the arguments for three days.
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 Supreme Court has begun hearing the writ petition against Attorney General Savita Bhandari's decision to amend the charge sheet related to money laundering and organized crime, including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane.
On the first day, two senior advocates argued on behalf of the writ petition. Dinesh Tripathi and Surendra Bhandari argued on behalf of the writ petitioner.
The case, which was being presented before the bench of Justices Binod Sharma and Abdul Aziz Musalman, began its hearing at around 3 pm. Initially, the judges had sought time to study the file. Then, the arguments began on behalf of the writ petitioners. The arguments that began on Monday were kept in abeyance after only two people got time on behalf of the writ petitioner.
Earlier, the bench of Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel had ordered to call for the file after hearing the arguments for three days.
The writ petition filed by senior advocate Tripathi, law students Ayush Badal and Yubaraj Poudel Safal sought quashing of the decision of the Attorney General's Office, calling it 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary'.
Attorney General Savita Bhandari had decided on 30 Poush 2082 to amend the charge sheet in the cases filed against Lamichhane in the Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi and Parsa district courts, so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'wealth laundering' would no longer be upheld.
The decision argued that Lamichhane was charged on the basis of political vendetta and that the interests of the savers should be given priority. The writ petitioner claims that even though Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code was used as the basis for amending the charge sheet, it was effectively an act of 'withdrawing the case'. The writ petition claimed that such a decision was wrong in a situation where Section 116 of the Code prohibits the withdrawal of cases related to money laundering. The writ petition states that granting immunity in serious economic crimes like money laundering will put Nepal on the blacklist of the International Financial Action Task Force and this will cause irreparable damage to the country. It has also been argued that amending the charges in cases like organized crime and money laundering that cannot be settled will deprive thousands of savers of their right to justice.
