The Parliament Secretariat is set to seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether to issue a notice of suspension of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane, who is facing cases of cooperative fraud, money laundering and organized crime.

The writ petitions against the Attorney General's decision to withdraw the charges of money laundering and organized crime from the cases against Lamichhane are currently pending in the Supreme Court. The Secretariat has made preparations to seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether to issue a notice of suspension if the Supreme Court does not give an immediate decision on those writ petitions.

Arjun Narsingh KC, the senior member of the House of Representatives, who is acting as the Speaker, said that if the Supreme Court decides immediately, it will proceed accordingly and if no decision is made, it will be done in accordance with the law. "If necessary, a decision can be taken after consulting the Attorney General," he said, "but since I was sworn in on Thursday, I have not been able to discuss this issue with anyone, including the Parliament Secretariat."

KC clarified that he is not in favor of embarrassing any party and said that he will play a coordinating role.  A case is pending against Lamichhane, who took the oath of office as an MP on Thursday, in Kathmandu, Rupandehi, Kaski and Parsa district courts. Legal experts have been arguing that if a case is filed in the court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the MP's post will be 'automatically suspended'. 

Section 27 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act states that 'if any official or employee of a corporate body established under the prevailing law or any public servant is detained under this Act, then for the entire period of such detention and if a case is filed against him under Section 22 (offences related to money laundering and financing of terrorist activities), such employee, official or public servant shall be deemed to be automatically suspended until the case is disposed of.'"

Based on this legal provision, the Federal Parliament Secretariat suspended Lamichhane from the post of MP on 8 Poush 2081. At that time, the Parliament Secretariat had informed that it had received information through the District Police Office (Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Branch) that the District Government Attorney's Office, Kaski, had filed a supplementary charge sheet. However, this time, there is uncertainty about what to do as a case is pending in the Supreme Court against the Attorney General's decision to amend the charge sheet. 

Congress MP Tek Bahadur Gurung was also suspended in the previous House of Representatives. He was suspended on 12 Poush 2079 on the basis that the corruption case filed against Gurung by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority on 21 Magh 2075 was pending. Hearing the writ petition filed by him against that, the Supreme Court ordered the lifting of the suspension on 16 Chaitra 2080. By then, the Special Court had found him guilty and imposed a fine. 

General Secretary of the Federal Parliament Padma Prasad Pandey said that there had been no discussion about both Lamichhane and Gurung. He said that a decision will be taken after receiving information from the official body. While Lamichhane, the elected member of the House of Representatives from Chitwan-2, was taking oath on Thursday, a joint bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a writ petition filed against Attorney General Savita Bhandari's decision to amend the charge sheet related to money laundering and organized crime.

The writ petitioners argued on Monday and Tuesday, while Attorney General Savita Bhandari and senior advocate Sushil Pant, who was retained on behalf of Lamichhane, argued on Thursday. While arguing before the bench of Justices Binod Sharma and Abdul Aziz Musalman, Attorney General Bhandari  defended her decision.

She argued that she exercised her authority under Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code after it was found that the charges registered against Lamichhane were excessive and unnecessary. The section states, "If additional evidence is found in a case that has already been filed in court and it appears that the previously filed demand needs to be amended, the concerned government lawyer may, with the approval of the Attorney General, file an application to the concerned court of the first level to amend the charge sheet, stating the reasons."

Bhandari claimed that the writ should be dismissed as it is immature since the decision on the amendment of the charge has not been made by the district court. Arguing after her, Pant argued that the writ petition should be dismissed, saying that it does not reach the jurisdiction of the petitioner. After the debate was not completed, Supreme Court spokesperson Arjun Koirala informed that it was adjourned for Sunday.

Senior advocate Raman Shrestha and others will argue on behalf of Lamichhane on Sunday. And the decision will be announced after the reply argument of the petitioner. Even after the Supreme Court decides, this dispute may reach the concerned district courts.

After the Attorney General's decision, petitions for amendment of the charge were filed in the Rupandehi and Kaski District Courts, but those courts had ordered that the case be filed after the Supreme Court's decision, as the case was pending. If the Supreme Court overturns the Attorney General's decision, no petition will be filed in the additional court. If the Supreme Court dismisses the writ or decides that the matter should be resolved by the concerned district court, the petition will be filed in the district.  Attorney General Bhandari had decided to amend the charge sheet on December 10.

In that decision, the argument was presented that Lamichhane was charged on the basis of political vendetta and that priority should be given to the interests of the savers. Senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, law students Ayush Badal and Yubaraj Poudel had filed a writ against this decision. The writ has been demanded to overturn the decision of the Attorney General's Office, calling it 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary'.  The writ petition argues that granting immunity in serious financial crimes like money laundering would put Nepal on the Financial Action Task Force's blacklist and cause irreparable damage to the country.