Last Monday’s watershed verdict of Nepal’s Supreme Court ought to end the political turbulence that has plagued the Himalayan country since last December.
It was, by any reckoning, a judicial directive with two constitutional facets ~ (a) the apex judiciary has negated the outgoing Prime Minister’s dissolution of the House of Representatives on May 21, and (b) has ordered the appointment of Sher Bahadur Deuba, Nepali Congress president, as Prime Minister.
The outgoing Prime Minister, KP Sharma Oli, has his back to the wall with the ruling of the five-member Constitution Bench helmed by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana.
The court has ruled that Oli’s claim to the post of Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5) was unconstitutional. The latter has thus lost the battle in the courts. The Bench has directed that arrangements be made for holding a meeting of the House of Representatives by 5 p.m. on July 18.
It has examined various issues that were raised in the aftermath of the dissolution on May 21. In a sense, the court verdict has saved the Constitution, and has also set a precedent for future Prime Ministers, i.e. that they cannot dissolve Parliament on personal whims and for short-term political gains.
Monday’s verdict signifies the victory of the rule of law, constitutionalism, independence of the judiciary and also, of course, the concept of democracy.
The Bench, in its 167-page verdict, was riveted to certain questions raised by the May 21 House dissolution. These relate to (a) whether the President’s actions come under judicial review; (b) whether Article 76 (5) gives the President discretionary powers or constitutional authority; and (c) if a Prime Minister elected under Article 76 (3) can stake a claim to the post again under Article 76 (5) despite failing a confidence vote.
The Bench observed: “As the Prime Minister appointed as per Article 76 (3) of the Constitution did not seek a vote of confidence from the House of Representatives, or as he forewent that process, and as he cannot present a claim to be appointed Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5), a claim by Oli, who could not get the vote of confidence, to form a government as per Article 76 (5) does not conform to the Constitution.”
The justices, in their unanimous decision, said that it would be appropriate to start the process from where the mistake was made. While Mr Deuba has been sworn in, the challenges he faces are formidable.
First, he must win a vote of confidence in the House within a month, and it is an extremely fragile coalition he heads. Next, he must ensure vaccines for all Nepalis and battle an epidemic that has raged while those tasked with managing it fought political battles. And finally, he must show immense administrative skills at a time Nepal faces multiple crises.
Considering his record in his previous stints as Prime Minister, that may be Deuba’s most formidable challenge. Nepal has little reason for optimism.