After the President returned the bill with a five-point message, it has been seen that the Parliament needs to take into account the constitutional spirit and the balance of power.
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.
After President Ramchandra Paudel withdrew the Constitutional Council Bill, the House has got an opportunity to correct the weak links in it. It is also the responsibility of the House to resolve the suspicions that have been raised in public regarding the provisions regarding the holding and decision-making of the Constitutional Council.
The House should be ready to accept and address the suspicions from constitutional scholars to the President that the provisions of the current bill are against the constitutional spirit. It addresses the constitutional concerns of the President on the one hand and makes the Act constitutional. The democracy we imagine is meaningful only if the balance of power is maintained in the appointment recommendation process by the Constitutional Council.
The controversy regarding the quorum of members is breaking out in the meeting of the council recommending appointments to the constitutional commissions. Although there are six members in the council, the bill was passed by the parliament and sent to the president so that the chairman and one member can take decisions together. The bill provides that in the case where the chairman and two members are present in the council for any reason, the decision shall be made by the vote of at least two people, including the chairman and at least one member. Similarly, if there is no agreement in the first meeting of the council, the chairman (prime minister) can call the second meeting within 48 hours and it is not mandatory to give the agenda and information of such meeting to the members. In this way, if there is no agreement in the first meeting, the arrangement that gives the right to the Prime Minister to make a decision by gathering only the members he wants in the second meeting will encourage arbitrariness and chaos, not law.
Article 284 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be members of the Constitutional Council for recommending the appointment of heads and officers of constitutional bodies. It is understood from this provision - this council is a multilateral mechanism with the representation of the high officials of the state. The principle of separation of powers, balance of power and control of power also envisages that this structure should be multilateral. When everyone agrees to recommend the appointment, there is a greater chance of selecting a qualified person. But the situation where 3 out of 6 members of the Constitutional Council can take a decision with the consensus of 2 cannot do justice to the structure of the Constitutional Council and the expectations towards it.
There have already been instances where decisions made by a few people can be controversial. In the ordinance issued by the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on 30 Mansir 2077 and 21 Baisakh 2078, there was a provision that decisions could be made by the majority of the members present including the Chairman (Prime Minister). Using the same, on 30 November 2077 and 26 May 2078, 32 and 20 officials were respectively appointed to various commissions/bodies based on the decisions made by only three people (Prime Minister Oli, Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Jabara and National Assembly Speaker Ganesh Prasad Timilsina). But such a decision raised questions not only about the appointment process, but also about the person who gets the appointment. Recently, the majority of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has settled the constitutional question of the appointment at that time, but the whole question is still unanswered. Therefore, the decision made by the Constitutional Council has a long-term impact.
The Constitutional Council Bill, which reached the President's Office on June 31 for verification, has returned to the House of Representatives with a five-point message. That is, the ball has now arrived in the court of the House of Representatives. Now, the ruling party and the opposition parties should take it as an opportunity to show their position and strength, rather than presenting political urges and prejudices, to improve their weaknesses. Right now, the ruling party or the ruling party should understand that the power is not always in their hands, they or their leaders may not always be in the prime minister's chair. We should understand the fact that only if we can protect the spirit of the constitution in the law and strengthen the law in the implementation process, even if we are in the opposition, we can make a balanced and mature decision. Understanding that, it is not difficult to address the provisions of the constitution and the President's message.
