Supreme Court Interim Orders Cause Delays, Allowing Some to Benefit While Cases Languish

Kathmandu. Cases with interim orders from the Supreme Court are facing significant delays in final hearings, consequently postponing their judgments. After obtaining an interim order from the Supreme Court and gaining a unilateral advantage, many writs are being dismissed as their justification becomes obsolete.

Currently, over 1,200 cases with interim orders are pending final hearing at the Supreme Court.

Public interest litigation cases are proceeding based on these interim orders until a final verdict is reached by the Supreme Court. Influential groups are utilizing these interim orders as tools to fulfill their self-interests in such matters.

Generally, the court issues an interim order if a writ petition appears prima facie flawed and stopping the matter would cause irreparable harm. Although interim orders are issued pending a final hearing, many cases at the Supreme Court remain stuck for years without being heard.

Former Inspector General of Nepal Police, Om Bikram Rana, who was convicted in a corruption case, filed a writ in the Supreme Court arguing against the stoppage of his pension. On Mangsir 17, 2081, a bench of Justices Kumar Chudal and Abdul Aziz Muslim issued an interim order not to implement the letter from the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) to halt Rana's pension. Following the interim order, Rana is currently receiving his pension. Even though a year has passed since the interim order was issued, the final hearing for Rana's case has not taken place.

The CIAA had written to the Pension Management Office directing them not to provide a pension to Rana after it was determined that there was a scam in the procurement of logistical supplies for the police mission to Sudan. Following this, his pension was put on hold. Rana filed a writ in the Supreme Court on Shrawan 18, 2081, after his pension was stopped.

The procurement agreement for logistical supplies for the Sudan mission was made during Rana's tenure. The Special Court and the Supreme Court had convicted Rana and others involved, citing a scam in that agreement. The Special Court, on Chaitra 1, 2068, convicted Rana and some officials for corruption.

Similarly, then CPN-UML lawmakers Som Prasad Pandey and Sharada Bhattarai approached the Supreme Court after the Election Commission refused to include their names in the formation of the CPN (Unified Socialist). After the split of the CPN, the Supreme Court issued an interim order on a writ filed by the two against the Election Commission, which had refused to recognize them as Unified Socialist lawmakers. On Bhadra 29, 2078, a joint bench of Justices Ishwari Prasad Khatiwada and Nahakul Subedi ordered the Election Commission to update the names of the two lawmakers and refrain from taking any action. The Supreme Court dismissed this writ on Fagun 4, after its justification expired, through a joint bench of Justices Kumar Regmi and Nripa Dhwaj Niraula.

On Ashar 10, 2081, the Supreme Court issued an interim order allowing Gandaki Provincial Assembly member Phanindra Devkota to function as a lawmaker. Devkota is currently serving as a Provincial Assembly member based on the interim order issued by the single bench of Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut. The Supreme Court has yet to schedule a final hearing for Devkota's case, whose membership remains sustained by the interim order.

The Supreme Court noted that although Devkota contested using the election symbol of the Maoist Centre, his nomination letter, the certificate issued by the Election Commission, and the notice published in the gazette by the Election Commission on Mangsir 29, 2079, mentioned him as belonging to the Nepal Socialist Party. The Maoist Centre had taken action against Devkota for violating the whip by supporting Chief Minister Surendra Pandey's vote of confidence.

After Speaker Krishna Dhital read out the notice of action taken by the Maoists in the Provincial Assembly, Devkota was removed from his post. Devkota filed a writ in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Maoist Centre could not take action against him as he was a member of the Nepal Socialist Party. He was elected from Gorkha 2 (1) in the Provincial Assembly elections held on Mangsir 4, 2079, using the Maoist Centre's election symbol.

There are risks associated with cases with long-pending interim orders at the Supreme Court. An internal study by the Supreme Court itself has indicated that prolonged interim orders negatively affect economic aspects, mental well-being, career development, and public interest.

It took 14 months to conclude a public interest litigation case related to the environment, which had an interim order from the Supreme Court. Following the Ministry of Transport Management's decision to phase out 20-year-old tempos, microbuses, and similar vehicles, a writ was filed in the Supreme Court against this decision. On Mangsir 13, 2074, a joint bench of then-Justices Tej Bahadur KC and Purushottam Bhandari issued an interim order.

Based on the interim order, tempos and microbuses continued to cause environmental pollution. After 1 year and 2 months, a bench of Justices Deepak Kumar Karki and Sapana Pradhan Malla dismissed the writ. In its verdict, the court interpreted that the right to live with dignity includes the right to a socially, physically, and mentally healthy life, the right to work in a healthy environment, and the right to breathe clean air. However, due to the Supreme Court's interim order, citizens were deprived of their right to live in a clean environment.

Casino Revenue Dispute Case, Sustained by Interim Order, Dismissed After 10 Years

A case concerning the revenue dispute of casinos was filed in the Supreme Court on Ashoj 23, 2070. Eleven years later, on Magh 23, 2081, a Constitutional Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut and Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Hari Prasad Phuyal, Manoj Kumar Sharma, and Nahakul Subedi delivered the verdict. However, even a year after the verdict, the full text of the judgment has not been released.

Regarding the preparation of the full verdict, the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code, 2074, the Muluki Civil Procedure (Code), 2074, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2074, stipulate that the full text of the judgment must be prepared within 21 days of the decision. Furthermore, the laws and regulations require informing the higher body if the decision cannot be prepared within the stipulated time.

Within three days of the deadline for preparing the decision expiring, the concerned Chief Judge of the respective High Court must be informed in the case of High Court and subordinate court decisions, and the Chief Justice must be informed in the case of the Supreme Court.

The dispute involved issues such as various heads of revenue not being collected from casinos, operation without renewal, and casinos registered in one location operating in up to four locations, which remained stuck in the Supreme Court for a long time. Casino operators had been avoiding tax payments by citing 'interim orders' from the court and were not operating according to regulations. Due to the absence of the full text of the verdict, the state has been unable to collect billions in revenue that should have been collected from the casino sector.

Although the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench dismissed the writ filed by the casinos on Magh 23, opening the path for revenue collection, the delay in collecting revenue persists because the full text has not been issued. So far, 5 casinos owe more than 1.55 billion rupees in revenue. The 60th Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General stated, 'This year, out of the 1.1543 billion rupees in revenue that should have been received from 24 casino operators, including application fees, license fees, royalty amounts, renewal fees, and annual additional fees, only 931.1 million rupees was deposited from the casinos.'

In the fiscal year 2078/79, four casino operators failed to pay the revenue they owed to the government under various headings. The Auditor General indicated that royalties amounting to 223.5 million rupees owed by four casino operators in previous years have not been deposited.

Although government laws and regulations for casino operation stipulate annual revenue payment, the operators often resorted to the courts. Interim orders allowed casino operators to continue their business. The Casino Regulation, 2070, mandates that casino operators must pay royalty every year, while Section 16 of the Finance Act 2078 mandates royalty payment within 6 months, with additional fees and annual surcharges for late payment.

According to data provided by the Hotel Branch of the Department of Tourism, among the operators running casinos in various locations across the country, 5 casino operators have long failed to pay the revenue owed to the government.

Since 2073, Happy Hour Pvt. Ltd., Rock International Pvt. Ltd., and Royal Casino Pvt. Ltd. have not paid various revenues and fees. Furthermore, the Department of Tourism stated that SHL Management Services Pvt. Ltd. has also not paid royalties, renewal fees, and various other revenues owed from the casinos it operates. According to the Department of Tourism, these various casino operators owe the government a total of 1.552149 billion rupees in revenue up to the fiscal year 2078/79.

Among the casinos, the operator of Casino Royale at Yak & Yeti Hotel owes the largest amount of revenue. According to the department, this casino owes 416.49 million rupees in revenue up to the fiscal year 2078/79. Similarly, Happy Hour Pvt. Ltd. owes 391.5 million rupees up to the fiscal year 2078/79.

The company operating Casino Rad at Oriental Hotel also owes 364.5 million rupees. Happy Hour operates mini-casinos in various locations across the country. In the past, casinos were operated through this company in Kakarbhitta, Bhairahawa, Mahendranagar, and Nepalgunj. Rock International Pvt. Ltd., which operates mini-casinos in Kakarbhitta and Dhangadhi, owes 230.5 million rupees. Furthermore, SHL Management Services Pvt. Ltd. owes 1.54 million rupees.

This dispute existed even before the government enacted and issued the Casino Regulation, 2070. The government introduced this regulation to bring casinos under the legal framework and create a path to collect the revenue due to the state.

The Casino Regulation 2070 included provisions such as old casinos needing to obtain new licenses, reapplying for licenses, paying a license fee of 20 million rupees, paying 50 percent (10 million rupees) of the license fee annually for renewal, and allowing entry only to foreigners. Casino operators challenged this very regulation in the Supreme Court.