Quantcast
Balendra Shah submitted a written reply to the Supreme Court Saying Critical views can be expressed - Nepal
Nepal

Balendra Shah submitted a written reply to the Supreme Court Saying Critical views can be expressed

Courts in Nepal are seen to be obstacle of everything specially in the progress of development or political issues.

In a recent case Supreme court has issued a stay order for not to demolish Nervic Hospital’s illegal construction which Kathmandu Metropolitan city has rejected and finalized as illegal as per current law of metropolitan.

Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balendra Shah has submitted a written reply to the Supreme Court. In response to the contempt of court case, he stated that the petitioner’s claim is baseless.

Advocate Deepakraj Joshi filed a contempt of court case against Balen after expressing against the Supreme Court’s interim order not to immediately remove the structure built by Norvic Hospital without passing the map.

Hearing which, the Supreme Court gave an order to Balen on the 13th of this month to appear and answer within 7 days.

Here is the written answer he have submitted to the court in Translation from Nepali to English as it is.

  1. “Through the verified Facebook page Balen, which is run by the Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City Balendra Shah under the name of Balen, “We earnestly request to amend the constitution and give the right to pass the map to the Supreme Court instead of taking action against the structures built without passing the map.” We have come to the shelter of the honorable court not to be satisfied with the obscene remarks made in such a way that it is not only indecent but also in contempt of the honorable court. Such negative and misleading expressions should be considered contempt of court. Act according to the law.” That is the main demand of the petitioner.
  2. I submit the objection with an explanation regarding the dismissal of the opposition’s application as follows:

2.1. At the outset, I clarify that the petitioner’s claim is baseless as there is no obstruction in the administration of justice or disobedience of the order or judgment of the honorable Supreme Court. I believe that in an open society that has adopted democratic values ​​like ours, it is possible to express critical opinions in a way that does not contradict Section 17(1) of the Administration of Justice Act, 2073.

2.2. Clause (a) of Article 17(2) of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of thought and expression. The guardian of it is the court itself. It is not compatible with the Constitution to mean that the exercise of the said fundamental right is contempt of court. It is contrary to democratic values ​​to try to create fear of punishment in the citizen by misinterpreting it for expressing an opinion regarding the work carried out by any organization or body of the state.

2.3. The fact that the Court of Nepal supports the personal freedom of the citizens is confirmed by the interpretations or principles it has rendered in countless judgments. It is expressed in the principle that the Supreme Court itself has expressed that the court does not deviate from its judicial function if a citizen expresses a critical view regarding the judicial proceedings. On the other hand, people’s faith in the court can be weakened by the latent suspicion or expectation of the opposing petitioner that the court will deviate. In fact, there is a general belief that the courts of a democratic state can become more independent, strong and accountable only through constructive criticism.

2.4 The dimensions of accountability of the head of the people’s representative organization are not only legal. I have to balance the different dimensions of my accountability when I discuss with the citizens of the city or ordinary citizens that I represent through social media or any other means. If the freedom of expression of my opinion based on the balance is narrowed, then the fundamental rights of metropolitan residents and ordinary citizens will also be curtailed. It seems that the opposing petitioner has overlooked this matter.

2.5. The law has also provided the head of Kathmandu Metropolitan City with a judicial role to some extent. I especially respect the sensitivity of judicial work due to my official responsibility. I make it clear that I have full respect for the honorable Supreme Court.

  1. Therefore, due to the aforementioned factual and legal grounds, I respectfully request that the objectionable claim of the opposing petitioner be rejected completely.
  2. Consider the discussion point of the lawyer appointed on my behalf as an integral part of this written answer.
  3. The information written in it is true, if it is found to be false, it will be punished according to the law.

What is your thought in this topic? Have your say by commenting below. We would like to hear from you. -Editor.

Post Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.