 |
Kathmandu Friday February 23, 2001 Falgun 12, 2057.
|
Ponder thoroughly
His Majesty the King has sought the opinion
of the Supreme Court regarding the bill to amend the Citizenship Act enacted almost four
decades ago. The amendment bill passed by the elected Lower House was rejected by the
Upper House. The normal course then would have been for the government to put the bill to
a thorough debate and correct all shortcomings that had hindered its passage in the Upper
House. But out of expediency or convenience or both, the government had deemed it fit to
rush the bill through the Lower House disguised as a Finance Bill. While it is for the
legal brains of the nation to decide whether such a move was appropriate and becoming of a
party that boasts of democratic credentials, the fact is that the bill went through
parliament not on its merit but because of the majority that the ruling party enjoys. We
do not even want to hint that there are no thinking brains in parliament or that
parliamentarians are like a herd of sheep who blindly follow their respective party
dictates. Indeed, on more than one occasion our parliamentarians have shown that they must
rise above petty party interests when it comes to matters and issues that concern the
nation. Yet it is strange that these very members were instrumental in the passage of such
a vital bill sent for reconsideration by the Upper House virtually without a debate.
The King’s consultation of the Supreme
Court about the bill passed by the Lower House of parliament has also raised a very
important question. What if the court says the bill is constitutionally valid and the King
gives his assent but the law is challenged in court by unsatisfied citizens? Though it is,
no doubt, true that the court can reverse its own decisions and revise its earlier
opinion, it is extremely difficult for this to happen. Though our system, claimed to be
patterned after the Westminster model, is neither British nor Indian; it is in reality
neither of here nor there. It is high time that an impartial institution to evaluate
proposed bills be set up. For instance, there is an institution in France that determines
whether or not a bill to be presented in parliament conflicts with the constitution.
Since, such a body is not a court of law, the bill when passed and becomes law can be
challenged in court. The present case has clearly indicated a need for such a body in
Nepal for more often than not political parties, with a parliamentary majority, tend to
arrogantly assume that because of the majority they can do no wrong. As far as the
prevailing Citizenship Act is concerned, more than one legal brains have stated that it is
adequate to meet the present needs. Nepalese citizenship can be obtained by anybody who
meets the minimum requirements. We are confident that the government also does not want to
distribute Nepalese citizenship to those who do not qualify for it. The undue haste shown
by the government in this particular case is difficult to understand, and we hope that it
has now learnt its lesson and will not rush legislation through parliament in future, that
has a vital inherent interest of the people and the country.
Other Stories
|
