Attorney General challenges petition for Home Minister Lamichhane’s suspension: Asserts lack of legal basis

KATHMANDU: Attorney General Dinmani Pokharel has submitted a written response to the Supreme Court regarding the petition demanding the suspension of Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane in connection with a cooperative fraud case.

In his response, Attorney General Pokharel argues that the petition should be dismissed as the petitioner lacks a meaningful connection to the issue.

The petition, filed by Advocate Anupam Bhattarai, is currently under consideration.

The case, which is being heard by a bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Saranga Subedi, has been under review since June 21.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 2, and the Supreme Court is expected to deliver its final decision after concluding the arguments on that date.

Attorney General Pokharel has defended both the dismissal of the petition and the letter from his office.

He asserts that the right to information was provided as per the Right to Information Act and the Constitution of Nepal, and that the information regarding Lamichhane was merely disclosed based on available data at the time, not as a ‘clean chit.’

“The main issue raised by the petitioner pertains to the investigation of the cooperative fraud case, but the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a meaningful connection or significant concern with the issue, nor have they shown the capability to represent the relevant victims,” Pokharel stated in his written response. “There is no clear legal or constitutional dispute arising from the petition. The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted matters of public concern, but this seems to be an attempt to indicate an affected party without substantial basis.”

Attorney General Pokharel further argued that when the concerned group or individuals themselves are capable of seeking judicial remedy, another person cannot file a petition on their behalf claiming it to be a matter of public concern.

He emphasized that the issue raised by the petitioner does not qualify as a matter of public concern under these circumstances.