Interview: There’s a atmosphere between the Leader Justice and KP Oli



National Assembly member Ram Narayan Bidari is also a senior advocate. Bidari, who represents the CPN-Maoist from the center, has been holding the view that the parties should take the lead in resolving the issues seen in the court. He has been saying that there is a basis and reason for impeachment against Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Jabra. However, his party, the Maoists, said the court dispute was internal and would not interfere and the issue should be resolved within the court. In this regard, News Factory has asked some questions to National Assembly member Bidari.

He had said that there were grounds for impeachment of the Chief Justice in the court dispute. But did your party’s standing committee say it would not interfere in court disputes?

The leaders of our country are not in a position to lead, to take bold decisions. On the one hand, it turns out that there was a discussion between the judge and the leaders about the issue / decision, which is wrong. When the leader talks about the case with the judge, when the judge talks about the case with the leader, when the judge and the leader talk about Bhagwanda together, the morale of the bad judge increases. This work was started by Oliji. The Constitutional Council appointed a constitutional body. The Chief Justice also spoke on the issue.

What are the grounds for impeachment?

There is a trend in the world. If there is a dispute in other posts, the court will look into it. If there is a dispute in the court, who will look after it? No place to look. If there is a dispute in the executive, legislature and constitutional organs, the judiciary will look into it. That is why there is no dispute in the judiciary. Aiha also means that the people who have disputes will be removed. The judge is not in a hurry. The Chief Justice should not have allowed this situation to happen. But, this situation is nothing to be ashamed of in the world. Nineteen people boycotted the bench and the Chief Justice was left alone. Despite this, the Chief Justice is guilty of not fulfilling his moral responsibility. Therefore, this is the basis for an impeachment.

Another premise is the appointment of the Constitutional Council, a fake act that was decided on a back date from the council meeting. The case of such an appointed person was taken up in his own sitting, he was sworn in again while the case was in his own sitting, he tried to look into the case of the appointed person again, he said from the bench that he would not look into the dispute and writ petition was filed the next day. Here is another reason why the case has not been heard for years on the basis of this and all the courts are ineffective and all this is due to the Chief Justice.

How can there be a way out if the Chief Justice does not resign and the parties do not file impeachment?

Now he is declaring that he will not take responsibility for morality. If they do not wear it now, the party which says it will not wear it is understood that the party has set it. As Oliji has been saying, if the Chief Justice is impeached, I will blame others. This is the setting. The Chief Justice has an OLG setting.

The ruling coalition has not taken the lead, is your party not ready? Consider this a setting too?

Where did the ruling coalition fail, why did it fail, why couldn’t it decide? This was also their weakness. Now let’s say the setting, they don’t say anything about other judges. There had to be other judges for the setting. The Chief Justice himself cannot make any decision alone except sitting on a single bench. There is no dispute of any judge in the issue of dissolution of the House of Representatives. Barr has not disputed either. Former Chief Justice and judges have support. Everyone has support. He did not say that those who made the decision should be punished. The setting is different. That is the setting of the Constitutional Council. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ruling coalition has set the stage. “I do not agree with the decision of the Chief Justice,” said Oleg. Therefore, the setting is for the Chief Justice and the OLG.

Why didn’t the coalition bring impeachment to break that setting?

Why didn’t the coalition bring an impeachment? If Oliji does not agree, two-thirds will not be enough. With less than two-thirds majority, it is difficult for the ruling coalition. But now the full court and parliament must investigate the chief justice. Our constitution states that an inquiry can be held by forming an 11-member inquiry committee in the parliament. According to this provision, the Parliament should investigate the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, who was under investigation and had to make a statement in Parliament, did not look into the matter. For this, the parties had to convene a House of Representatives. If the parties were not ready, at least a quarter of the parliament had to be convened.

You put these things inside the party?

The party had to make a quick decision. The alliance had to make a quick decision. The coalition did not ignore this. I have said that the Parliament is the only body to hear the disputes of the court. Leaders need to understand.

How is the Bar movement taken?

I support the movement of the bar and the judges.

Did the judge’s movement hit the service recipients?

Clients are always in trouble. The losing issue wins. The winning issue loses. The Chief Justice himself says that there is widespread corruption. Harikrishna Karki’s report says that if there is widespread corruption, the round should be held. However, everyone agrees that the Chief Justice has no faith.

You are also an advocate, the movement seems to be divided. There are those who want to tie the white belt, do not resign, fulfill the legal demands, right?

The people who tie the white belt are the kind of people who do brokering. The bar gave the license. It is more of a broker than an advocate.

What is the way out now?

The parties have no choice but to file impeachment.





Source

Sharing Is Caring:

Leave a Comment