NATIONAL 1 (Spotlight Weekly)]

Courting The Court

The Supreme Court's decision to reinstate NRB Governor Rawal shows that it can enter any matter related to the state

By A CORRESPONDENT

It looks like there is no issue Nepal's Supreme Court is reluctant to hear. Following the promulgation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990, the apex court has entered into tricky political issues, including controversial decisions on the prime minister's prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives.

In some cases, like the Labor Act and citizenship issue, the court has set precedents. Many new trends have been introduced through public interest litigation.

Rawal : Victorious

But in some cases, the court's decisions have come under heavy public fire. Even though it has some exclusive powers, many experts believe it cannot enter areas where it does not have a specialized role.

But other constitutional lawyers do not agree with this minimalist view, arguing that the court can intervene whenever there is injustice against individual rights and duties.

After its interpretation of the constitution in 1995, the court recently intervened in the issue of the government's order to dismiss Nepal Rastra Bank Governor Tilak Rawal. As the interpretation of the constitution by the court on the rights of the prime minister has already created chaos in national politics, the full impact of the reinstatement of Dr. Rawal remains to be seen.

The court's intervention this time, lawyers argue, will ruin the whole economic structure of the country in the way its 1995 interpretation threw national politics into disorder.

In a six-month court battle, the full bench of Supreme Court issued an order to the government to reinstate Dr. Rawal as the governor of Nepal Rastra Bank. Dr. Rawal was dismissed just a few months after he was appointed by the Krishna Prasad Bhattarai government.

Former executive chairman of the Rastriya Banijya Bank and former general manager of Agriculture Development Bank, Dr. Rawal has been in the banking sector for more than a decade.

Then finance minister Mahesh Acharya recommended Dr. Rawal's dismissal arguing that he did not support the government's financial sector reform package.

The apex court also ordered the government to allow Dr. Rawal to function for his full five-year tenure as governor. This is the first time the court delivered justice to an aggrieved party in such a short period of time and asked the government to allow the governor to serve out his full tenure.

When the bench, chaired by Justices Krishna Jung Rayamajhi and Top Bahadur Khatri, issued the order a jubilant supporter of Dr. Rawal welcomed it by a sustained clap.

"Finally, I got justice from the Supreme Court," said Dr. Rawal. "The court has shown that it is capable of checking the injustice committed by the executive."

The controversy began following the resignation of Mahesh Acharya as finance minister from Bhattarai's government when the prime minister proposed Dr. Rawal's name to head the central bank.

Following the decision of the court, Acharya, who was given the defence portfolio in the last reshuffle, submitted his resignation on moral grounds. But he later he withdraw the resignation at the request of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala.

When it comes to the apex court, few are as lucky as Dr. Rawal, whose case was settled within less than six months. Many other cases are pending for more than two years.

Constitutional lawyers argue that the court cannot intervene in matters related to economic affairs because that is the sole responsibility of the executive.

The series of cases over the last few years shows that apex court is increasingly moving towards judging the actions of the executive.