Full or constitutional? Supreme Court split over bench for asset probe case
Summary
The Supreme Court is split over whether a challenge to the government’s asset-investigation commission should go to a full bench or the constitutional bench, delaying the case while an interim order keeps the commission suspended. The Nepal Bar Association and lawyers have objected to the administrative push to shift the matter, saying it should be heard by the bench already ordered by justices.
Key Points
- A dispute has erupted in Nepal’s Supreme Court over whether petitions against the asset-probe commission should be heard by a full bench or the constitutional bench.
- Justices Tek Prasad Dhungana and Shreekanta Poudel had earlier ordered the case to be heard by a three-justice full bench and suspended the commission’s work in the meantime.
- The Supreme Court administration later recommended transferring the case to the constitutional bench under Article 137(3), prompting objections from the Nepal Bar Association and petitioners.
- The government commission, formed to investigate the assets of politicians and senior officials, remains stalled while the bench issue is unresolved.
