Babulal Mandal had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the appointment of Jibnath Chaudhary, who was convicted in a corruption case, as an advisor to the Madhesh provincial government. The full text of the writ petition was recently made public.
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 ordered the provincial government to include a provision that, among other things, persons with pending corruption cases or convicted persons are considered ineligible when formulating regulations for the appointment of advisors. The bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Tek Prasad Dhungana made this order.
The Supreme Court made this order in a case filed by Babulal Madanal against Madhesh Province. After this judgment, Madhesh Province should immediately, and other provinces should set an example by making provisions that persons with registered corruption cases and convicted persons are ineligible when formulating regulations for the appointment of advisors. The full text of the judgment dated 4 Magh 2082 was recently made public.
As soon as the full text is made public, the provinces will now have to amend the regulations for the appointment of advisors by including such a provision. ‘The dedication to the values and norms imbibed by the liberal constitution has been assimilated by contemporary constitutional jurisprudence as the value of constitutional morality.’ The elements of good governance such as accountability, transparency and the rule of law seem to follow the broader concept of constitutional morality,’ the full text of the judgment states, ‘Good governance is not a value that is bound within the framework of formal provisions of law. It is a high-level cultural style of governance that is always dedicated to the public interest through conduct and behavior.’
The full text of the judgment states that it is not possible to travel on the highway of constitutional morality by accepting the elements of corruption that cannot be sustained around the concept of good governance. ‘If the formal provisions of the law do not prohibit the appointment of persons who have been convicted of corruption at the initial level and whose cases are pending at the appeal level, if such persons are given a place in the mainstreaming of the governance structure, there is a risk that the general public will see and feel that the entire structure is corrupt and corrupt,’ the full text states. ‘Such a risk should not be given place by officials who are responsible for the implementation of the constitution.’
Stating that Article 128 of the constitution has been established as a principle that everyone must follow, the Supreme Court has said in the judgment that it would be appropriate to issue a directive order to issue regulations with clear criteria for the appointment of advisors from the provincial council of ministers to effectively implement the interpretation and principles of constitutional ethics by the constitutional bench.
This was the controversy
After appointing Jibnath Chaudhary as an advisor to the Madhesh provincial government, Babulal Mandal had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. Chaudhary, who was appointed as an advisor to the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Development, was found guilty in a corruption case by a special court.
A person convicted of a crime that cannot be reconciled and the case cannot be withdrawn is not and cannot be eligible for appointment, but a writ was filed in the Supreme Court demanding that it be annulled because it was given to him.
The special court had on 1 Ashad 2072 sentenced Chaudhary to four months in prison and a fine of 300,000. While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, a dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Minister of Physical Infrastructure and Development appointed him as an advisor.
The writ claimed that the provincial government had allocated budget in the name of the Mithila Development Fund headed by Chaudhary, which was against the principles of good governance.
