NATIONAL 2 (Spotlight Weekly)]

Justice Delayed Is...

The apex court orders the government to come up with a reply on its decision to freeze land transactions. How long will the people have to wait for justice?

By KESHAB POUDEL

Although the Supreme Court has asked the government to come up with a reply on its decision to freeze all transactions pertaining to land on August 31, the common citizens, who came to challenge the injustice committed by the executive seeking immediate justice, are disappointed.

As soon as Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba announced his so-called "revolutionary" land-reform program, freezing all transactions of land until new legislation is passed, a group of citizens and lawyers filed cases in the apex court demanding that Deuba's move be declared as going against the spirit of the constitution.

Supreme Court : Guardian of rights

After two days of hearings on six different petitions, a single bench headed by Chief Justice Keshab Prasad Upadhyaya asked the government to come up with a reply on its decision within a week. Although the court responded to the petition filed by the citizens promptly and asked the government to come to the court, nobody knows how long people will have wait to get justice.

Nepal's judiciary has developed a tradition of delivering justice to the people affected by arbitrary decisions of the executive. The government, according to the imagery used by the Supreme Court in the case of Bed Krishna Crests v. Department of Industries, Commerce, Food and Civil Supplies, is an eagle which many snatch people whom it considers to be chicks or goslings at moments of its own choosing.

Over nearly 41 years of vigilance, the apex court has protected the right of the citizens. Regardless of the political system of the day, the Supreme Court has remained a last resort for those seeking justice. Even during the despotic Panchayat days, the court protected fundamental rights of the citizens. How quickly people will get relief in this case remain to be seen.

"As the court is going hear the case in the full bench by inviting many lawyers from different sides, one cannot foresee an immediate respite to the people," says a lawyer. "The case will be now debated in the crowded bench where lawyers will repeat their tedious arguments and justices will have to listen to them."

Without justice being freely, fully and impartially administered, neither individuals, nor rights, nor the property of any person could be protected. If the decision to attack public property on the basis of a decree is encouraged, it will encourage unconstitutional practices. In the past, the court proved that it is a body capable of stopping the encroachment of the executive in the fundamental rights of citizens.

When Prime Minister Deuba announced his decision to freeze transactions pertaining to land, in violation of Article 17 of the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal, people went to the court seeking immediate relief. Article 17 on the rights to property says:

1. All citizens shall, subject to the existing laws, have the right to acquire, own, sell and otherwise dispose of, property.

2. The state shall not, except in the public interest, requisition, acquire or create any encumbrance on, the property of any person.

3. The basis of compensation and procedure for giving compensation for any property requisitioned, acquired or encumbered by the State in the public interest, shall be as prescribed by law.

The bench, after hearing six cases filed by citizens, asked the government to come up with a reply. However, the citizens, who wanted immediate remedy, are frustrated with the institution they believe would never let them down. In a number of cases over the last decade, the court has given remedy to the citizens. In a number of other cases, the court also landed in political controversy.

There are many cases where justice has been delayed. On the other hand, there have been an equal number of instances where citizens have received prompt justice. "The judiciary failed to provide quick and effective remedy to the accused in RNAC’s Lauda Air deal, people who were already being persecuted by the media. The target was then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, but the most unfortunate victims were employees and board members of RNAC," says a lawyer on condition of anonymity.

Despite these shortcomings, the Supreme Court remains the last hope for those fighting against unjust acts committed by the executive and other institutions. In this case, the court has to prove more than ever that it has neither delayed nor denied justice.