Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Against Former PM Oli's Oath Controversy

Kathmandu. The writ petition filed in the Supreme Court regarding the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's refusal to recite the phrase 'I pledge' during his oath of office and secrecy, stating 'that is not necessary', has been dismissed.

A joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Binod Sharma and Sunil Kumar Pokharel has dismissed seven separate writ petitions filed by senior advocates Dinesh Tripathi, Dr. Chandrakant Gyawali, and Rajkumar Suwal, and advocates Navaraj Adhikari, Santosh Bhandari, Lokendra Bahadur Oli, and Sita Shrestha, deeming them without merit, five years later.

The issue of the then Prime Minister Oli stating 'that is not necessary' instead of the oath language 'I pledge' while taking the oath of office and secrecy from the then President Bidya Devi Bhandari had become controversial. Following Oli's statement of 'that is not necessary' instead of 'I pledge' during his oath as Prime Minister on Jestha 31, 2078, there was protest and criticism from the streets to the parliament.

As Oli's oath became controversial, a writ was filed in the Supreme Court demanding that the oath be invalidated and retaken according to the legal framework. The writ argued that the provision regarding oaths in Article 80 of the Constitution of Nepal had been disrespected.

Following the dispute over the phrase 'I pledge' in the oath, Oli introduced an ordinance related to oaths, removing the word 'I pledge'. At that time, following the controversy and criticism, the Oli-led government issued the 'Oath Related Ordinance, 2078'.

The ordinance, in Article 3, Sub-section (2), amended the provision related to the oath format, stating: 'I ........ take an oath in the name of God, country, and people, pledging to be completely loyal to the Constitution of Nepal, with the sovereign power and sovereignty of Nepal vested in the Nepali people...'