NEPAL SUPREME COURT REJECTS PETITION QUESTIONING

UNCLAS KATHMANDU 002033 SIPDIS STATE FOR SA/INS LONDON FOR POL - RIEDEL E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV NP SUBJECT: NEPAL SUPREME COURT REJECTS PETITION QUESTIONING KING'S APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM GOVERNMENT REF: A. (A) KATHMANDU 1938 ¶B. (B) KATHMANDU 1932 ¶1. On October 23 the Supreme Court rejected a petition, filed by a private attorney, contesting King Gyanendra's action in forming an interim government (Reftels) as unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court registrar, the Court threw out the case because the King's action was warranted under Clause 127 of the Constitution, which grants him authority to remove "difficulties" in implementing the Constitution. The registrar also cited Clause 31 of the Constitution, which stipulates that "No question shall be raised in any court about any act performed by His Majesty." ¶2. Comment: A constitutional expert has told us that the Supreme Court had no alternative but to reject the petition. In his reading, the language of Clause 127 does not restrict what actions the King may take to remove "difficulties"--even if those actions include appointing a caretaker government. While the language of Clause 127 is so vague as to allow a very liberal interpretation of what the King may do, the language of Clause 31, on the other hand, is quite specific and unambiguous. "No question" in "any court" about "any act" by the King left the court very little leeway. We expect future challenges--if there are any--to meet a similar fate. MALINOWSKI