The two writ petitions filed by advocate Premraj Silwal have been scheduled for final presentation before the bench of Chief Justice Sharma and Justice Meghraj Pokharel.
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.
Two writ petitions against the Asset Investigation Commission formed by the Balendra Shah government have been scheduled for presentation in the bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma. Two writ petitions filed by advocate Premraj Silwal have been scheduled for presentation in the bench of Chief Justice Sharma and Justice Meghraj Pokharel.
Earlier, on April 30, the first hearing was held and a show cause order was issued. The single bench of Justice Balkrishna Dhakal also summoned the opposition for discussion along with a written reply. Advocate Silwal claimed that the Asset Investigation Commission is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.
Similarly, a second writ petition was filed claiming that the commission does not have the authority to investigate the assets of sitting and former judges. On April 29, the writ petition was filed alleging that judges and former judges were also included in the asset investigation.
The Supreme Court has issued a show cause order in the name of the Government of Nepal, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Property Investigation Commission and the Chairman of the Investigation Commission, Rajendra Kumar Bhandari.
The writ petition claims that the government, contrary to international practice, has made arrangements to allow former Chief Justices, judges and even sitting judges to file complaints with the Commission under the jurisdiction of the investigation under Section 2, Section 17 (b). This has destroyed the essence, recognition, basis and constitutional arrangements of an independent judiciary and has created a situation where judges have to be under pressure, influence, hope and fear from the government, and therefore the aforementioned Commission itself has no jurisdiction and should be abolished.
The petitioner has claimed that the provisions regarding the jurisdiction of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, a constitutional body, are contrary to the constitutional provision that, if there is evidence and basis for corruption by the Chief Justice or a judge, the Commission can investigate, investigate and prosecute the case in a special court after the impeachment by the Parliament as provided in Article 101 of the Constitution, as per the legal provisions and legal process.
