Supreme Court Concludes Arguments in Nepali Congress Legitimacy Dispute

Kathmandu. The Supreme Court concluded hearings on Friday regarding the legitimacy dispute within the Nepali Congress, with arguments presented by both the petitioner Sher Bahadur Deuba's side and the respondent Gagan Thapa's side.

Representing Gagan Kumar Thapa, Senior Advocate Purna Man Shakya argued that the special general convention cannot be deemed invalid and that the Election Commission's decision was correct. Shakya contended that the special convention became mandatory after the term extension was no longer an option. 'According to the Congress party statute, once 40 percent of the convention representatives call for it, the Central Working Committee cannot refuse,' he stated, adding that it is a mandatory right that must be exercised.

Senior Advocate Gopal Krishna Ghimire asserted that the special convention was held in accordance with Article 23 of the statute. 'They already accepted tickets signed by Gagan Thapa for the election,' Ghimire said, 'The petitioner's side cannot now claim this is not legitimate.'

Senior Advocate Shailendra Upadhyay argued that internal party conflicts should be resolved within the party. 'Internal party disputes are not matters for the court,' he said, questioning whether the court would intervene if 30,000 citizens demanded the appointment of a judge. He maintained that a writ filed by a specific group does not automatically grant legitimacy.

Senior Advocate Chandra Kanta Gyawali argued that since the elected working committee's term is fixed at four years under the Congress statute, the convention must be held within that period. Citing the doctrine of 'hub', he argued that the petitioner's side cannot accept tickets and participate in elections only to later reject the outcome. He further argued that as this is a political question, the court cannot intervene.

Lawyers for the Deuba faction argued against granting legitimacy to officials selected through the special convention. During the hearing before a joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Sharanga Subedi and Nripadhwaj Niraula, former Attorney General and Senior Advocate Raman Kumar Shrestha, appearing for petitioners Sher Bahadur Deuba and Purna Bahadur Khadka, argued that it was illegal for Sher Bahadur Deuba to be presided over by an individual not recognized by the Congress statute.

'The special convention is prima facie illegal,' he argued, questioning how the Election Commission could recognize a convention that is clearly against the party's statute. Regarding the claim that acting president Purna Bahadur Khadka lacks standing, Shrestha questioned how the opposing side could demand a special convention if they lacked the standing to file a writ.

Senior Advocate Shrestha further alleged that the Election Commission granted legitimacy to Gagan Kumar Thapa without proper verification. He questioned how the Commission could make a decision within 12 hours without reviewing documents, despite claiming in its written response that the decision was based on submitted evidence. He alleged that signatures of deceased individuals and those living abroad were forged and submitted to the Election Commission. 'Shouldn't those signatures and documents be verified?' he asked.

He argued that the decision was made without any analysis of the evidence required by Article 51 of the statute. Citing the past Supreme Court order that led to the split of the NCP, he urged the court to ensure such a situation does not recur. 'The court should not issue an order that splits the Congress, but rather consider how the party can remain united,' he told the bench. When Justice Sharanga Subedi asked if parties splitting and merging is a common occurrence, Shrestha insisted that this is not just about a party split, but a matter of public concern.