The Patanjali case is also a 'case study', the findings of which will provide meaningful guidance to the country. In order to resolve this whole issue, the government will have to prove its impartiality over time.
A new chapter has begun in the investigation and prosecution of corruption in Nepal after a case was registered against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal in a special court. The authority claims that the cabinet led by Nepal, who became the prime minister in 2066, has committed corruption by allowing Patanjali Yogpeeth to buy more land than the limit and allowing it to sell within two months.
The case registered by the authority in the special court is not a regular legal process as so far the decision of the council of ministers has not been investigated by the authority and an additional and transparent defense kabach has been set up for the top leaders.
After the case was registered against the former Prime Minister of Nepal, the case was canceled. If the investigation and prosecution in the Patanjali case is carried out with natural motives, this case will prove to be a milestone for the country towards good governance and accountability. However, if it is only a game of political revenge and revenge, it should be considered as the beginning of a new era in Nepal. It may take decades to assess the details of the damage.
Patanjali, led by Indian yoga guru Ramdev and associate Acharya Balakrishna, was registered in Nepal's company registrar's office in November 2064. After Patanjali applied to open a herbal industry and yoga college, the Nepal-led Cabinet approved the purchase of 815 ropani land in Kavre's Banepa on 18 Jan 2066 at a limited discount.
After the approval of the Cabinet, 593 ropani land was purchased in the name of Patanjali. However, within two months of getting permission to buy the land under limited exemption, i.e. on 6th Chait, the Cabinet itself had given permission to sell the land. The then Director General of Land Reforms, Keshar Bahadur Baniyan, expressed a written disagreement that the decision of the Council of Ministers to approve the sale of the land bought at a limited discount within two months to open the
industry was reasonable. However, after asking him for an explanation, the transaction was completed by removing him from responsibility. In this way, the transaction of buying and selling within two months has become the subject of judicial determination even after 16 years.
This is not the first case of irregularities in the cover of the cabinet. Especially in the cases from Widebody to Lalita Niwas, cases were registered only against the ministers and employees by giving immunity to the political leadership. However, it is the essence of the democratic constitution that no person can be above the law no matter how much responsibility he holds.
That is why there is a continuous voice in the streets and in the House that the decision of the Council of Ministers chaired by the Prime Minister should be allowed to raise legal questions and the decision-making officials should be held accountable. Therefore, while discussing the bill on authority, the sub-committee under the State Order Committee of the Parliament
has prepared a report with the provision that 'the decision of the Council of Ministers can also be legally tested'. However, due to the pressure of the top leaders of the major political parties, the bill is now stuck in the State Affairs Committee and has not been sent to the House. On the one hand
Top leaders are not ready to make legal arrangements to hold the cabinet accountable and on the other hand, a case is registered against the leader of the opposition party in the same context, the question of whether this is just a coincidence or a political plan has become relevant now. To break the story, a corruption case was filed against former Prime Minister Tulsi Giri in 2035 for evading a planned tax on carpet exports. The case made waves even then. But he was acquitted by the Supreme Court. Similarly, after the assassination of power in 2061, King Gyanendra arrested former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on corruption charges.
However, Deuba was not investigated by any other constitutional body. The royal commission set up by King Gyanendra in Tajbeez was granted extra-judicial powers to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate itself, which was overturned by the Supreme Court. Although the Prime Minister's name has been linked to various corruptions since then, they were given immunity through legal practice, the chain of which has only been broken now.
If the practice of making the Prime Minister accountable to the law can be institutionalized, Nepal will enter a new era in good governance. However, if the politics of revenge becomes institutionalized, the situation will be similar to neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh.
In 1996, Nawaz Sharif forced former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto into exile on corruption charges in Pakistan. But three years later, Nawaz Sharif was also deported. Exiled in Saudi Arabia for a decade, Sharif returned home and became the prime minister, but in 2016 he was jailed again on corruption charges.
Sharif's party is now back in power, but in the meantime, Imran Khan, who became the prime minister, has been kept in jail. On the other hand, in Bangladesh, Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina were making a terrible conspiracy to use the corruption issue as a political weapon to send each other to jail. Now Hasina is in exile in India while Vegam's party is banned.
Even though the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and Bangladesh went to jail, governance did not become strong in those countries, instead, a terrible cycle of destroying each other's politics and public life continued to be staged. Nepali society is anxiously waiting for good governance, not suicide game like that. Because for the country, the issue of corruption is an undertaking of good governance, not a tool of revenge.
The Patanjali case is also a 'case study', the findings of which will guide the country meaningfully. In order to resolve this whole issue, the government will have to prove its impartiality over time.
Similarly, former Prime Minister Madhav Nepal will not be able to prove himself innocent by making a statement that this is an abuse of power. He, who is legally suspended as a member of Parliament, should stand aside from all his political and public responsibilities and assist the judicial process. The society is consciously alerting all parties, not only to demand fairness and freedom, but also to demonstrate the practice.
