Supreme Court vacated order

The Supreme Court on Sunday vacated its 10-day-old stay order against the government's order to the Moondrops Overseas not to send workers to South Korea.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel and Tahir Ali Ansari issued the order to vacate previous SC stay order, issued on June 1 by a single bench of Judge Pawan Kumar Ojha, that had allowed the company to send workers to South Korea.The court on Sunday said there is no need to continue the stay order issued by the single bench on June 1 because the issue is to be settled by the court while delivering a final decision on the case.
The government, as per the Clause 20 of the Foreign Employment Act 1992, had simply ordered the manpower agency not to send workers to South Korea and therefore the issue would be decided in final decision of the case, the bench said.

Sunday's decision prevents the Moondrops Overseas Company to send 695 trainee workers selected recently and the 167 workers who were selected in 2004 to South Korea.

The government had ordered the company not to send the workers to South Korea after it refused to follow the government direction to send 10 per cent workers selected by the government.

Law on real estate business soon

The government is set to introduce an Act on Real Estate business to control haphazard urbanisation through regulations that allow the transaction of only the plotted lands."In the absence of relevant laws on Real Estate business, the people have adopted the practice of purchasing small land, especially in areas having farms to make houses,"said Purna Kadariya, director general at the Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (DoUDBC).

"We have made all preparation to send the draft of the Act to the parliament to pass it,"he said. "The rampant urbanisation will be stopped after its enactment, he added.He said that the Act would make provisions requiring the people willing to run the Real Estate business to register their firms in the government offices including the Company Registrar's Office and Tax office."They should also ensure that that the land was well plotted and had no legal problems,"Kadariya said.

The Real Estate dealers are not registered with any government office and the government has been unable to collect any tax from them against their income.Highlighting the feature of the drafted Act, he said if anybody wanted to develop a plot for more than 50 families and he or she didn't get the way to reach the plot, the government would encroach the land to construct the road there.

"The government can help the plot developer to develop the land by not compromising the size of the land even if there is sewerage as per the provision of the draft Act,"he said."The Act will benefit the state to develop planned urbanisation, collect tax through which people are assured of good plot,"Kadariya said. "The businessmen get benefit of bank loan easily and they need not conduct their work secretly,"he added.

HoR Regulations provision to be amended

The provision in the proposed House of Representatives (HoR) Regulations that requires the Supreme Court (SC) justices to swear in before a Special Committee of the House will be changed before the endorsement of the Regulations, an SC source said.

A meeting between the full court of SC justices and a team of parliamentarians led by Law Minister Anand Dhungana Friday afternoon agreed to amend the provision.

All justices of the Apex Court including Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel and general secretary of the Parliament Secretariat, Surya Kiran Gurung and secretary of Nepali Congress Parliamentary Party Benup Raj Prasai were present in the meeting.

The proposed HoR Regulations require the SC justices including the Chief Justice to swear in before a Special Committee of the HoR.

"As per the agreement between the two sides, the Chief Justice will swear in the justices," the source said, adding, "In case of the Chief Justice, the meeting proposed that he take the oath of office and secrecy in presence of other justices or through any other provision as taking oath from the king was out of question in the changed situation."

Minister Dhungana and other MPs went to the Apex Court in the afternoon to "discuss and resolve the issue" after an emergency meeting of the full court of SC justices this morning decided not to swear in before House.

The SC justices decided not to take the oath of office and secrecy before the Special Committee of the HoR saying it would be against the principle of independence of the judiciary.

It may be recalled that the judiciary and the legislative were at loggerheads some years back as parliament prepared an anti-corruption bill that proposed to authorize the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) to take action against corrupt judges. The move was later aborted.

SC Judges Not to Take Oath Before House


Emergency meeting of the full Supreme Court today decided that the judges will not go to the House of Representatives to take their oath of office and secrecy.The decision was taken after the Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Poudel called an emergency meeting of the full Supreme Court this morning. The meeting was called to discuss the proposed House of Representatives Regulations that make it mandatory for apex court justices to take their oath of office and secrecy before a special committee of parliament.

"We take a decision not to go to parliament to take oath since it would be against the principle of independence of the judiciary. Taking the oath before parliament means, the judiciary should be obliged to parliament," Justice Anupraj Sharma told reporters after the meeting.

SC emergency meet to discuss House regulations

Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Poudel has called an emergency meeting of the full Supreme Court for Friday morning to discuss the proposed House of Representatives Regulations that make it mandatory for apex court justices to take their oath of office and secrecy before a special committee of parliament. According to Supreme Court justices, the full court, the apex policy making body of the judiciary, is likely to take an unanimous decision not to take oath as per the new provision proposed by the House.

The emergency meeting of the full court has been called two days before parliament is likely to pass the new House of Representatives Regulations. The regulations have already been tabled in parliament for discussion and are likely to be passed on Saturday.Chief Justice Poudel called the meeting after an informal discussion with colleagues during tea time at his office. The meeting discussed the proposed regulations Thursday as well.

It may be recalled that the judiciary and the legislative branch were at loggerheads some years back as parliament prepared an anti-corruption bill that proposed to authorize the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) to take action against corrupt judges. The move was later aborted.

SC issued directive order

The Supreme Court Thursday issued a directive order to submit report on minimising the use of tear gas during mass demonstration by forming a committee of experts from health, environment, science and education sectors.

A special bench comprising SC justices Balram K.C., Khil Raj Regmi and Gauri Dhakal issued the order in response to a writ petition filed by Dhanjaya Khanal claiming that the provision to use tear gas contravenes with Article 12 (1) of the Constitution of 1990.

SC judges dissatisfied with proposed HoR regulations

Two Supreme Court judges have expressed dissatisfaction over a provision of the House of Representatives (HoR) regulation tabled before the House which stated Chief Justice and other Justices of the SC require taking oath of office once again before a parliament committee.Speaking at a programme in the capital on Thursday Justice Anup Raj Sharma said honest judges would prefer to step down rather than surrender their conscience before the House. "This is the beginning of another form of anarchy soon after one form anarchy was toppled," Sharma said.Saying it as a serious issue on part of an independent judiciary, another Justice Min Bahadur Rajamajhi has been quoted by The Himalayan Times as saying that, "The House wants to bring the judiciary under it forcibly.

This is against the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances."The judges said declaration is neither a part of the constitution nor an interim statute since the 1990 constitution is still functioning.Clause 238 of the proposed HoR regulations mentions that the CJ, other Justices of the SC and judges of all courts will have to take the oath before a Special Committee of the House or they will be dismissed.It has been learnt that Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel had held informal discussions with the apex court judges on the issue on Thursday. The formal meeting is scheduled for Friday to discuss the matter.

President of Nepal Bar Association (NBA), Shambhu Thapa, urged the member of the parliaments not to attack on the independence of the judiciary."If the MPs think they know everything, they can take the charges of the judges, but they should not attack the judiciary and the rule of law," Thapa said. "Stop every action against the morale of the judges," he said, adding "There is no need for the judges to take the oath of office before the House."He also accused the House of coming up with a regulation that 'attacked' the judiciary even though the Speaker of the House, Subhas Chandra Nemwang, held discussions with the Justices and the NBA before preparing the same."There is no need for the judges to take the oath of office before the House. They can, however, take it in the name of the people," he said.

Thapa was speaking at a programme organised to launch a book, Sambidhan, Sambidhanbad, Sambidhan Shabha ani Rajyako Punarsamrachana, written by Advocate Chandra Kanta Gyawali. The book was launched by SC Justice Anup Raj Sharma. Thapa also urged the MPs to impeach 'worthless' judges and not threaten 'honest' ones.

While Attorney General Yagyamurti Banjade said the rule of law and the independence of judiciary still exist in the country, Gyawali urged everybody to respect the rule of law and the judiciary's independence.

Interim constitution needed : Legal Experts

Legal experts stressed the need for an interim constitution to legalise the recent achievements of the movement and the declaration of the House of Representatives (HoR). Speaking at an interaction in the capital on Friday Constitutional law expert Purna Man Shakya urged the government to promulgate a new constitution to give legal validity to yesterday's declaration and to make arrangements to prevent constitutional vacuum.

He said there are enough experts in the country to draft an interim constitution, if the politicians needed.Shakya said political decisions would not always be applicable unless they are transformed into laws and no one can question yesterday's House declaration if it is given shape of a legal document. Former Supreme Court Judge, Laxman Prasad Aryal, said the process to promulgate a new constitution has already started with the declaration. "

Since the House passed a resolution to promulgate a new constitution, the 1990 constitution is no more in force," he added. Advocate Bhimarjun Acharya seriously questioned the supremacy of the House as declared on Thursday. Acharya also said it is not good to make the Supreme Court under the Parliament by strapping the apex court of its power of judicial review. "The declaration intends to escape from an election to a constituent assembly," said advocate Mukti Pradhan.

HoR regulations tabled

The much awaited draft regulations that seeks to further curtail the king’s privileges and ensure sweeping power to the parliament was tabled at the House of Representatives (HoR) Wednesday.Nepal Peasants and Workers Party (NWPP) chairman Narayan Man Bijukchhe, who headed a 13-member drafting committee, tabled the HoR regulations.The draft proposes to do away with the concept of “king in parliament” adopted by the constitution of the 1990.

If ratified, which is certain, the King will no more be a part of the parliament and the provision to send legislatures passed by the HoR to the Royal Palace for royal seal will become void.As per the proposal, bills passed by the House will become law after certification by the speaker. Similarly, instead of the King, the Prime Minister will be presenting the policies and programs to the parliament while parliament sessions will be called by the speaker at the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the speaker can also end the session.

The proposal states that provisions regarding the appointment of heir to the throne will be as per separate laws to be formulated by the House.

A 19-member Special Security Committee will take decisions regarding the mobilization of the Nepali Army on the proposal of the Prime Minister, the proposal states. Earlier, matters related to the army’s mobilisation will be looked after by the Security Council.

Likewise, the appointment of heads of constitutional bodies and diplomatic missions will be made by the government with approval from an all-party parliamentary committee. Earlier, approval of the King was mandatory for such appointments.The special committee will comprise of the Prime Minister, speaker, deputy speaker, defence minister, finance minister, foreign affairs minister, law and parliamentary affairs minister, leader of the main opposition party and representatives of various political parties representing in the House.

Presenting the regulations at the House, NWPP leader Bijukchhe said the proposal aims to establish parliamentary supremacy in line with the people’s movement and the parliamentary declaration of May 18

Mainwhile Members of Parliament (MPs) on Wednesday accused the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) of implicating Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in amassing property disproportionate to his income without any ground. They also said that the anti-graft body gave Koirala a clean chit without divulging the details.The MPs were speaking in a programme 'Ratification of UN Convention Against Corruption' organised by REMAC, Nepal, in the capital."The CIAA should make it clear on what ground it accused our leader and why it is not giving details about its so-called clean chit," MP Ram Nath Adhikary said. He also accused the anti-graft body of being a weapon of the King during his direct rule and implicating other political leaders in corruption.

Adhikary also demanded the CIAA take action against ministers of the royal cabinet, including Dr Tulsi Giri and Kamal Thapa, who "misused" the state treasury.MPs Govinda Bahadur Shah and Shiv Basnet also accused the CIAA of implicating leaders in corruption during the King's rule without strong evidence. They further said the CIAA did not do much to check corruption during the King's rule.MP Bharat Kumar Shah said the CIAA should make public the reasons for launching investigations against political leaders. He also demanded an appropriate mechanism to take action against corrupt officials of the judiciary, army and the police.MP NP Saud called upon the CIAA to prove whether its action against the leaders was just.MPs Raghuji Pant and Chitra Bahadur KC said political commitment and tough laws are needed to curb corruption.

Chief Commissioner of the CIAA, Surya Nath Upadhayay, however, said the CIAA commissioners are ready to face the State Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives on the issue. "We have prepared a report on the investigations and we are ready to submit it if it wants," he said.Upadhayay also said the CIAA had investigated high-ranking politicians following recommendation from the high-level judicial probe commission. He added that the CIAA had faced difficulties during the King's direct rule. He said the CIAA should not be condemned as as it is an autonomous body.

SC refuses to take up case against HoR Declaration

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to test the constitutionality of the Declaration of the House of Representatives.Advocate Achyut Prasad Kharel had filed the petition a few days ago stating that since almost all the provisions of the Declaration contradicted the 1990 Constitution, the apex court should test its constitutionality.

He also claimed that as the declaration was not a constitution and as it did not amend the 1990 statute, it cannot be taken as superior to the existing Constitution.He also claimed that the Declaration passed by the House on May 18 cannot be legal as it is only a political document.Registrar of the SC Dr Ram Krishna Timalsena formally rejected a writ petition challenging the proclamation.“

Since Clause 9 of the Declaration states that the provisions of the 1990 Constitution and existing laws would be automatically nullified if they contradicted the House proclamation, there is no need to test the constitutionality of the Declaration,” the rejection directive passed by Timalsena said. The petition was rejected as per Rule 27(2) (3) of the Supreme Court Regulation, 1992.

Army refutes report

In a reply to the Supreme Court, Nepalese Army (NA) has expressed ignorance about the arrest and detention of a suspected Maoist, said to have been arrested on August 21, 2003. The army's reply is contradictory to reports of national and international rights organizations.

On May 29 this year, chief of the Bhairabnath Battalion Rajendra Jung Khatri told the court in writing that the battalion had never arrested nor detained Chetnath Dhungana alias C N Dhungana. Khatri also expressed ignorance on the whereabouts of Dhungana.

However, separate reports prepared by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal) said Dhungana was arrested and detained by the battalion in 2003.

According to the NHRC report submitted to the court, Dhungana was last seen in the battalion on December 20, 2003. "On that day he was taken away in a truck to an unknown destination," said the NHRC report.

Similarly, according to the OHCHR report released recently, Dhungana's name figures in the list of 49 suspected Maoists made to disappear from the battalion in 2003. All the 49 are feared killed.

In its reply to the court, the army has questioned the authenticity of the NHRC report. "The report is not based on facts. So the habeas corpus petition of Dhungana be quashed," NA told the court.

Interim statute a must: Ex justice

Two of the drafters of the existing constitution Former Supreme Court Justice Laxman Aryal and former minister Bharat Mohan Adhikari said the government and Maoist negotiators should agree to promulgate an interim statute to govern the transitional situation during their next dialogue."It should not be made an issue of debate during the talks," said Aryal, speaking at an interaction organized by the new faction of People's Front Nepal led by Chitra Bahadur KC.

"Even the interim statute that we are talking about should be promulgated through the sovereign House," Aryal said."All contentious issues will be automatically settled once the transitional legislative body is set up and an interim executive is formed through it," Aryal added. Adhikari who is also a senior leader of the ruling seven-party alliances said an interim statute was felt urgent for smooth progress in the talks. "

The declaration of the House of Representatives is not sufficient to govern the situation ahead.'Both the speakers, however, suggested that present House of Representatives should not be dissolved until another sovereign institution is set up.

Show cause notices issued

Supreme Court has issued show cause notices to government authorities on the detention of former Home Minister Kamal Thapa and former Local Development Minister Tanka Dhakal.

The apex court ordered the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Kathmandu District Administration Office, the Police Paharagan and the Police Academy to furnish reasons for putting the duo in preventive detention within three days.Following today’s hearing, a single bench of justice Tahir Ali Ansari issued the notices to the authorities in response to separate habeas corpus petitions filed by advocate Namaraj Karki.
The bench also sought explanations from Thapa and Dhakal whether they have been allowed to meet their relatives, as the petitioner claimed that the authorities have not been providing facilities to the detained former ministers.

The former ministers have been in 90-day preventive detention since May 12. The state has accused them of posing a threat to people’s sovereignty and the rights achieved through the people’s movement.

Contempt of court case against army officials

A contempt of court case was filed today in the Supreme Court seeking action against the Chief of the Legal Department of the Nepal Army, BA Kumar Sharma and chief of the Rajdalgan barracks, Pradeep Kumar Adhikary.

The duo has been accused of misleading the court on the detention of three people. Filing the case, Ranju Darnal, a relative of the three persons Ranjit Darnal, Amrit Darnal and Rajendra chaurel claimed that the army officials misled the apex court while submittingexplanations on the trio’s detention.

“They misled the court by saying that the army did not detain them though they have been detained at the Rajdalgan barracks,” the petitioner claimed.

She said the army had arrested them three years ago on charges of being Maoist sympathisers.

Case related detianed will be preference : CJ

Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Poudel has said the Supreme Court will give preference to cases relating to persons detained in various jails, who have been waiting for court decisions.

CJ Poudel said this during a meeting with a delegation of members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Tuesday.

“Chief Justice Poudel said the court will show interest in cases of persons who have been kept in detention for a long time while the court procedure is underway and that legal procedure will start as early as possible,” a statement issued by the NHRC said.

The NHRC team had also apprised the CJ about the facts obtained by the NHRC following its monitoring of jails around the country. The delegation comprised of commission members Sushila Singh Silu, Sudeep Pathak and Gokul Pokhrel.

Mainwhile Inmates of the Nakhu Jail on Tuesday took their Jailer under control, demanding a general amnesty.

They have demanded the release of all prisoners along with the prisoners of conscience asking Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula to carry out dialogue with the prisoners.

The inmates of the Nakhu Jail have threatened to keep Jailer Ram Prasad Bhattarai under their control until their demands are met.

There are about 300 inmates at Nakhu Jail along with the Maoist prisoners.

Although the government ordered the release of all Maoist prisoners recently, some of them are still in detention due to legal procedures.

Ex-ministers Thapa, Dhakal move SC for release

A day after the Supreme Court (SC) ordered the release of three ministers of the erstwhile royal regime, two other detained former ministers filed habeas corpus writ petitions at the SC Monday.

Former ministers Kamal Thapa and Tanka Dhakal filed the writ petition through their attorney, Nam Raj Karki, challenging the legality of their detention under the Public Security Act (PSA).

Then home minister Thapa and local development minister Dhakal were arrested on May 12 along with three other former ministers of the King’s cabinet, Ramesh Nath Pandey, Shris Shumsher Rana and Nikshay Shumsher Rana and were sent to 90-day detention. Pandey and Rana-duo were released after an order by a full court of the SC Sunday.

Announcing its release order, the apex court said there were no legal grounds to keep them under detention.

The SC is, however, yet to set the date for hearing on their case

Nepal decleared untouchability, discrimination free country

A meeting of the House of Representatives (HoR) on Sunday declared Nepal as an untouchability-and-discrimination-free country.

The historic declaration came after a discussion on a proposal of urgent public importance tabled by CPN-UML lawmaker Parashuram Meghi Gurung. The declaration is expected to act as an important breakthrough in creating an equitable society by bringing together dalits and backward groups into the national mainstream.

The proposal, passed unanimously by the HoR, will ensure a fair representation of dalits, comprising almost 22 percent of the population, in the process of forming the constituent assembly and a new constitution.

The proposal was seconded by Hari Acharya of People's Front Nepal (PFN), Ram Hari Dhungel of Nepali Congress (NC), Tanka Prasad Rai of NC-D and Govinda Bikram Shah of Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) while MPs Lila Mani Pokharel, Tara Meyangbo, Janak Raj Giri, Yadav Bahadur Rayamajhi and Bhakta Bahadur Balayar participated in the discussion supporting the proposal.

"The practice of untouchability will now onwards be considered as a social crime and the government will enact laws in such a way that the inhuman and discriminatory practice is more punishable," Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Narendra Bikram Nembang told the House prior to tabling of the proposal for decision. He also assured the House that a new Bill will soon be introduced in this regard.

He also assured that the government would make special arrangements for dalits in education and employment sectors, besides the ongoing provision of scholarships for dalit students in schools and reservations in higher studies.

Release three former ministers:SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the government to release three ministers of the erstwhile royal cabinet, Ramesh Nath Pandey, Shris Shumshere Rana and Nikshya Shumshere Rana.

Terming their detention as unconstitutional, a full bench of the SC comprising Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel and justices Min Bahadur Raymajhi, Ram Nagina Singh, Anup Raj Sharma and Khil Raj Regmi issued the order.

The case was presented before the full court after a division bench of Justices Kedar Prasad Giri and Tapa Bahadur Magar failed to decide it, citing legal complexities.

After hearings on habaes corpus petitions filed by former minister Ramesh Nath Pandey, former minister of state Shrish Shumsher Rana and former assistant minister Nikshya Shumsher Rana, a full bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Poudel ordered the government to immediately release the three former ministers saying that the court found that "they were being held without adequate basis and reasons."

Advocate Tika Ram Adhikary had filed a habeas corpus petition two weeks ago, seeking release of the former ministers claiming that the government had detained them illegally.The seven-party alliance (SPA) government formed after the reinstatement of the House of Representatives had detained five former ministers in the erstwhile royal cabinet.

Former home minister Kamal Thapa, former foreign minister Ramesh Nath Pandey and former state minister for information and communication Shris Shumshere Rana were arrested on May 12 following a government decision.

Two other ministers in the royal cabinet, Tanka Dhakal and Nikshhya Shumshere Rana were also detained.Pandey, Shris Shumshere and Nikshya Shumshere had filed separate habeas corpus writ petition at the Apex Court following their arrest. Thapa and Dhakal did not seek any legal remedy against their detention.

All the arrested ministers had been handed a 90-day detention letter.

The ministers were arrested for "trying to suppress the recent pro-democracy movement" following immense public pressure and apparently a recommendation by the high-level judicial commission formed under the chairmanship of former SC justice Krishna Jung Raymajhi to probe the "excessive use of force" by the royal regime to suppress the prodemocracy movement.

No constitutional question anymore : AG

Attorney General Yagyamurti Banjade told the Supreme Court, that the government does not have to abide by the 1990 Constitution.

“Since the political regime has already changed, the 1990 Constitution may not be followed in the changed context,” Banjade said. “The House itself declared that it is the supreme body of the nation and the provisions of the existing Constitution and laws cannot apply if they contradicted with the declaration. So there is no question of going by the existing Constitution,” he said.

Banjade was arguing in the case testing the legality of the detention of former ministers Ramesh Nath Pandey, Shrish Sumsher Rana and Nikshya Sumsher Rana before a full bench comprising Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel and Justices Min Bahadur Rayamajhi, Ram Nagina Singh, Anup Raj Sharma and Khil Raj Regmi. The Chief Justice put Justice Regmi on the bench after Justice Kedar Prasad Giri declined to be a member of the bench hearing the case. Banjade also claimed that King Gyanendra had transferred the state authority to the people and reinstated the House and as such there is no ground to test the government’s action.

He added that the former ministers were taken into preventive detention because they had started hatching conspiracies against the achievement of the Jana Andolan and they had suppressed the people’s movement by misusing power. Deputy AG Dorna Raj Regmi said there was no need to follow the SC’s precedents in the changed context.

Pleading on behalf of the former ministers, senior advocate Ganesh Raj Sharma argued that since the former ministers had advised the King to reinstate the House and to transfer power to the people, it was illogical to detain them. “The former ministers had contributed inestablishing Loktantra and as such it is wrong to detain them,” Sharma added.

He sought their release as it was illegal to detain them without any valid ground. “There is a need to tell the government in judicial language that there is nobody above the Constitution and the rule of law,” he added.

Advocates Bishnu Bhattarai and Balkrishna Neupane also termed the detention illegal and urged the court to release the former ministers.

The case has been deferred till next Sunday.

SC full court starts hearing on ex-ministers case

The full court of the Supreme Court started hearing on the habeas corpus writ petition filed by three ministers of the erstwhile royal regime on Thursday.

The full court comprising Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Poudel and justices Kedar Prasad Giri, Min Bahadur Rayamajhi, Ram Nagina Singh and Anup Raj Sharma heard the case filed by detained former ministers Ramesh Nath Pandey, Shrish Shumsher Rana and Nikshya Shumsher Rana.

Senior advocate Ganesh Raj Sharma and advocate Bal Krishna Neupane presented arguments from the petitioners’ side while defense attorneys are scheduled to debate in the next hearing.
The case was presented before the full court on Tuesday after a division bench of Justices Kedar Prasad Giri and Tapa Bahadur Magar failed to decide it, citing legal complexities.

The full court had deferred hearing on the case on Tuesday after the bench was divided as to whether Justice Giri could be part of it.

Former ministers Pandey and Rana-duo were arrested and sent to preventive detention on May 12 along with two other key ministers of the royal regime – Kamal Thapa and Tanka Dhakal. They had filed a habeas corpus writ on May 16, challenging the government’s decision to detain them.

The five former ministers have been handed three-month detention warrants under the Public Security Act