Gagan Thapa Files Written Response in Supreme Court Defending Special General Convention

Kathmandu. Nepali Congress leader Gagan Kumar Thapa has submitted a written response to the Supreme Court, asserting that the special general convention was a mandatory necessity. He further argued that the writ petition filed by former president Sher Bahadur Deuba and Purna Bahadur Khadka should be dismissed, claiming they lack the legal standing to file such a petition based on their former positions.

The response states that according to the mandatory provisions of the party statute, a special central general convention must be convened within three months if deemed necessary by the Central Working Committee or if 40 percent of the central convention members submit a written request citing specific reasons.

It is also mentioned that the representatives demanding the special central general convention had formally informed then-president Sher Bahadur Deuba, acting president Purna Bahadur Khadka, and the Central Working Committee, and had submitted an application to the Election Commission to direct the convention, which was scheduled for 2082 Poush 26, 27, and 28.

The response further claims that the party's 14th General Convention was held in Kathmandu from 2078 Mangsir 24 to 28, and according to the statute, the four-year term of all party officials and members expired on 2082 Mangsir 23.

'Petitioner Sher Bahadur Deuba has presented himself as the president of the Nepali Congress party, and the opponent Purna Bahadur Khadka as the acting president,' the response notes. 'However, decision no. 5 of the special general convention clearly stated that the term of the Central Working Committee elected from the 2078 14th General Convention had expired. Until the formation of a new Central Working Committee from the 15th regular general convention, a central election committee was formed to conduct elections, and a new Central Working Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Gagan Kumar Thapa, which has already been updated according to prevailing laws. Therefore, the Central Working Committee cited by the opponents is non-existent, and the opponents (Deuba-Khadka) have no legal standing to file this writ petition.'

The response also asserts that the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 133 of the Constitution of Nepal is to be exercised only when there is a restriction on the enforcement of fundamental rights mentioned in Part 3 of the Constitution.

'Theoretically, the Supreme Court issues a writ order only when a citizen's constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights are infringed upon due to the actions or decisions of a public body,' the response states while demanding the dismissal of the writ. 'In this case, when an individual approaches the honorable Supreme Court claiming that their fundamental rights have been restricted due to the actions or decisions of a public body, they must clearly specify which right has been restricted and how.'