The writ petition filed against Attorney General Savita Bhandari Baral's decision to amend the charge sheet related to money laundering and organized crime filed against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane and others has been kept under 'watch' once again after the debate was not completed on Tuesday. The bench has kept the writ pending for Thursday as Wednesday is a public holiday after there was no time for the debate on Tuesday. The debate on the writ petition has been ongoing since Sunday in the bench of Supreme Court Justices Saranga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel.

Senior advocates Sushil Pant and Raman Shrestha argued on behalf of Lamichhane on Tuesday. They demanded that the writ petition be dismissed. They argued that there was no complaint against Lamichhane initially, but the government later decided to prosecute the case and filed a supplementary complaint, so this political and forced accusation was added.

After Pant and Shrestha, advocate Dipendra Jha came to the debate. He cited some Indian precedents and the Supreme Court of Nepal's rulings, arguing that Lamichhane was charged with political vendetta. Then, Judge Pokharel questioned Jha's claim that only Lamichhane was charged with political vendetta, noting that it had been decided to withdraw the cases of more than 50 people, including GB Rai. 'The argument that the charge sheet for forced organized crime and money laundering was filed in Lamichhane's case was raised in the bench, but why did the government propose an amendment for the absconding GB Rai and others?' Pokharel asked. In response, Jha replied that since all these defendants were made defendants in the supplementary charge sheet, all cases had to be withdrawn. Then the sequence of rebuttal arguments began. Writ petitioners Ayush Regmi, Ayush Badal and Surendra Bhandari argued. Then, even though it was Dinesh Tripathi's turn, the writ was kept under review as the time was not up. If the arguments are over, the Supreme Court will pronounce its decision on Thursday itself.

Earlier on Sunday, senior advocates Tikaram Bhattarai, Dinesh Tripathi, Surendra Bhandari and Anupam Bhattarai, among others, argued on behalf of the writ petitioner. Claiming that the Attorney General withdrew the case under the guise of amending the charge sheet, they argued that the Supreme Court should intervene judicially. Their claim was that recognizing this would be the beginning of the practice of abuse of power by the Attorney General.

On Monday, Attorney General Bhandari herself argued. Defending her decision, she claimed that the charge sheet was allowed to be amended due to political vendetta and additional evidence found. After Bhandari, Deputy Attorney General Sanjiv Raj Regmi and Lokraj Parajuli argued on behalf of the government prosecutor. They made many arguments in defense of Lamichhane's decision to amend the charge sheet. After the argument was not completed on Monday, the writ was kept under review for Tuesday.

Attorney General Bhandari had decided on 30 Poush 2082 to amend the charge sheet against Lamichhane in the cases filed against him in Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi and Parsa district courts, so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'wealth laundering' would no longer be valid. In that decision, the argument was presented that Lamichhane was charged on the basis of political vendetta and that the interests of savers should be given priority.

The writ petition filed by senior advocate Tripathi, law student duo Badal and Regmi and Yubaraj Poudel has demanded that the decision of the Attorney General's Office be quashed, calling it 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary'. The writ petitioner claims that even though Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made the basis for the amendment of the charge, it is in practice an act of 'withdrawing the case'. The writ petition argues that the decision was a 'fraudulent use of law' when Section 116 of the Code prohibits the withdrawal of money laundering cases.