KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has sought a written response from Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel regarding a petition that accuses the government of contempt of court through a provision included in the budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2025/26.
The court issued the order while hearing a writ filed by Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi. The petition names the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Forest and Environment, and the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies as defendants. The court has scheduled a hearing for June 22 and granted the case priority status.
In the order, a joint bench of Justices Til Prasad Shrestha and Nityananda Pandey directed the government to submit a written explanation via the Office of the Attorney General within seven days, excluding official holidays, explaining why contempt charges should not be pursued. The court has attached a copy of the petition along with the notice.
The petition specifically challenges Clause 87 of the newly announced national budget, which outlines provisions for involving the private sector in the commercial production and marketing of natural and mineral resources. The petitioner argues that this clause contradicts a previous Supreme Court order and thus constitutes contempt.
The bench stated that the implementation of Clause 87 should be reviewed through hearings with both parties before deciding on whether to issue a stay order. Given the seriousness of the matter and its potential implications, the Court granted the case priority status under Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Regulations, 2017.
Tripathi claims the clause directly contradicts a Supreme Court verdict issued in the fiscal year 2021/22, in which the court ordered the government not to implement Clause 199 of that year’s budget. That clause had permitted the export of construction materials like stones, gravel, and sand. The court had ruled that such provisions violated environmental and legal norms.
The new Clause 87 introduced by Finance Minister Paudel again proposes allowing private sector participation in the mining, processing, and export of mineral and river-based materials. The budget also promises to conduct environmental impact assessments and ensure that only economically and environmentally viable resources are utilized.
Tripathi, in his petition, argued that this reintroduction of similar provisions disregards past Supreme Court rulings, undermining judicial authority and accountability. He demanded maximum legal penalties for those involved in what he described as an act of contempt.
Comment