Advocates-on-Record Or Advocates-on-Road

Nepal Bar Association’s way of opposing apex court will widen the gap between lawyers and judges weakening independent judiciary

By KESHAB POUDEL

From Dharna (sit-in) protest to boycotting the court, Nepal Bar Association (NBA) has already announced a number radical programs to protest the recent Supreme Court’s decision not to issue interim order against media ordinance.

Whatever the decision the court gave on media ordinance, judiciary is still the only institution to protect the citizens’ rights and judges need strong support from civil society and lawyers. But the NBA’s action will inevitably weaken the judiciary as well as judges. Respected and glorious institution, NBA can still play important role to bridging the gap between the judges and lawyers as both of them are parts of judicial process.

Even Kantipur Daily, one of the first victims of ordinance, in its editorial of November 14 requested lawyers not to take harsh step to widen the differences with judges.

From the beginning of hearing to the end, the courtroom scenario showed that the court decision on interim order on media ordinance would put the court in a political controversy.

From the government side to petitioners, the lawyers clearly indicated that they would not mind to blame court in case the decision did not favor them. This is the reason why the most important issue of barring individual’s freedom was taken on the basis of political propaganda.

Attorney general Pawan Kumar Ojha, who is the lawyer leading the government side spoke some sensible things in regard to the ordinance. Other lawyers like senior advocate Kunjabihari Prasad Singh, former attorney general Prem Bahadur Bista, advocate Bal Krishna Neupane and advocate Chandra Kafle and other dozens of government-hired lawyers used all kinds of political jargons pressing the court not to issue interim order.

“I know the petition was entertained by court under the influence of publisher of Kantipur Hem Raj Gyawali,” said senior advocate Kunja Bihari Prasad Singh to bench. “Court should not issue interim order to protect a media house.”

When the court is hearing fundamental issue of freedom of expression senior advocate tried to project it as a personal case of publisher of Kantipur daily. Other side, too, pleaded equally politically.

“If the court does not issue interim order, we will go to the people’s court for final verdict,” said senior advocate Daman Nath Dhungana. “People’s court is supreme.”

On the petitioners’ side there were some professional lawyers like former attorney general Badri Bahadur Karki and advocate Madhav Kumar Basnet pleaded about all fundamental issues connected with constitutional rights of people and media.

By raising of the fine amount and higher prison term in defamation act from Rs. 1000,000 up to half million and prison term up to 2 year, the state tries to terrorize the free press. Asking to choose two media among three that were already allowed earlier, the ordinance is trying to have retrospective effect. Only few mentioned such lacunae of the ordinance.

Nobody knows why this has been raised without taking any empirical study in regard to the provision of existing laws and repeal laws, which in fact remain uninformed, for long, by the courts themselves.

For full five days, the three member bench of Supreme Court quietly heard all the sensible and nonsense arguments presented in the court by the lawyers representing petitioners and the government defense lawyers and finally rejected the demand of petitioners to issue interim order. But accepting the importance of the matter, the bench ordered to hear the petition on priority.