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