Concerns Mount Over Supreme Court Administration's Rejection of Public Interest Litigations

Kathmandu. The Supreme Court administration has rejected two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions in the last month. A trend has emerged where politically motivated petitions are registered easily, while those of serious public concern are frequently rejected at the administrative level.

According to the principle of natural justice, no one's claim should be dismissed without a hearing. Rejection at the administrative stage means being turned away at the door without entering the judicial process. Legal experts argue that this trend prevents significant public interest cases from reaching the bench.

Recent examples include disputes over the qualifications of the Attorney General and petitions against the suspension of Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Rabi Lamichhane's parliamentary seat.

Advocate Madhav Kumar Basnet's petition against the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers regarding the appointment of Attorney General Dr. Narayan Datta Kandel was rejected by Registrar Bhadrakali Pokharel. The petition challenged Kandel's constitutional qualifications under Articles 157(3) and 129(5) of the Constitution of Nepal, requesting the annulment of his appointment and oath taken on 22 Chaitra 2082.

The rejection order cited Rule 40(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2074, stating that the petitioner failed to provide documents to substantiate the claim and that legal remedies should be sought through regular courts rather than the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

In another instance, law student Ayush Badal's petition seeking the suspension of Rabi Lamichhane's parliamentary seat was also rejected by Registrar Pokharel after being held for two days. The petition argued that under Section 27 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2064, a public official facing serious charges should be automatically suspended until the case is finalized.

The Supreme Court administration has previously rejected PILs, including those related to the government's ban on social media. While these were initially rejected, the court later ordered their registration following the 'Gen-Z' movement, though the petitions became moot as social media services had already resumed.

Legal experts emphasize that when serious legal questions are involved, cases should be registered and decided by the bench rather than being rejected at the administrative stage. Similar issues were noted in cases involving transitional justice, where conflict victims faced significant hurdles before their petitions were eventually accepted following judicial intervention.

Advocate Kirtinath Sharma Poudel notes that while the Constitution guarantees the 'right to judicial remedy,' the administrative gatekeeping of the court often prevents citizens from accessing justice, effectively denying them their day in court.