KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has granted permission to review a case challenging the Election Commission’s decision to update the official records of the Nepali Congress, raising questions over whether the commission provided the concerned parties with an opportunity to be heard before making its decision.
A full bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma and Justices Nityananda Pandey and Shrikant Poudel issued the order on Thursday, stating that the case raises serious constitutional and legal questions warranting further judicial examination.
The review petition was filed by former party president Sher Bahadur Deuba and Nepali Congress President Gagan Kumar Thapa.
According to the order, the court will examine whether the Election Commission complied with the principles of natural justice while updating the party’s records under Section 51 of the Political Parties Act, 2017, and Rule 25 of the Political Parties Regulations, 2018.
The bench noted that it remains debatable whether the earlier verdict by a joint bench adequately addressed the petitioners’ claim that they were denied a fair hearing before the commission issued its decision on Magh 29, 2082 BS.
The court also referred to two previous Supreme Court precedents, which establish that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies must provide affected parties with an opportunity to present their case before making decisions that could impact their legal rights or status.
Earlier, on Baisakh 4, 2083 BS, a joint bench of the Supreme Court had upheld the Election Commission’s decision, rejecting petitions seeking to overturn it.
However, the full bench concluded that it is necessary to reassess whether that ruling correctly applied established legal principles.
The review has been permitted under Section 11(2)(b) of the Judicial Administration Act, 2016. The case will now proceed to a full hearing, after which the court will decide whether to uphold or overturn the Election Commission’s decision.
The Supreme Court clarified that its latest order does not constitute a final ruling in favor of either Deuba or the Nepali Congress. Instead, it only finds that the legal issues raised deserve a comprehensive review before a final verdict is delivered.
Comment