By Our Reporter
The Supreme Court has given two verdicts by altering the verdicts of the previous SC chief justice and justices.
On the property case of former Princesses Prerana Singh, the division bench of SC chief justice Sushila Karki and Justices Deepak Karki and Sapana Malla Pradhan decided that the land belonging to her would from now on belong to the Nepal Trust.
Earlier, the bench of chief justice and a justice had given the verdict that the land owned by former Princesses won’t belong to the Nepal Trust.5
The 15 ropani 1 aana land at Chhauni, Kathmandu was received by the former Princess as dowry from her father the then King Gyanendra.
With the abolishment of monarchy, the government had decided to transfer the properties belonging to the then King Birendra and his family members to the Nepal Trust. The Nepal Trust, claiming the land belonging to the then King Birendra had included the land in Trust’s property. The former Princesses had knocked the Court door for justice regarding this matter.
According to Suresh Acharya, who had served at the Royal Palace for a long time, the property given by the then King Gyanendra to his daughter doesn’t belong to King Birendra, however, that land was owned by King Birendra, King Gyanendra and Prince Dhirendra’s aunty Vijaya Rajya Laxmi. Therefore, the SC decision to approve the claim by the Nepal Trust on the property gifted by King Gyanendra to his daughter by the Nepal Trust is not justice as per Mr.Acharya.
In our tradition, there is no practice of eying on dowry property of any female, therefore, the court decision is prejudiced, Acharya has remarked on his Facebook status.
If the present verdict is accepted, what will happen to the property given by King Birendra to different important persons besides from the members of the Royal Family during his lifetime, Acharya has questioned.
Furthermore, the then King Gyanendra has made many decisions at the capacity of the King, including restoration of the parliament, formation of cabinets, among others. If the King’s decisions are rejected, all works and decisions by Girija Prasad Koirala should have also been unconstitutional. To recall, Koirala was appointed prime minister by the then king Gyanendra.
Again, on the case of CIAA chairman Lokman Singh also the SC has altered the previous decision made by the SC itself.
These decisions have established the evidence that any decision done by the SC is not the final decision and that can be altered by the future SC justices. The impact of such evidences established by the SC can be counter-productive in the days to come, say legal experts.
Interestingly, the SC has decided to disqualify Lokman Singh but it has remained silent on those who had assigned him to the post of the CIAA chairman, including the then chief justice and chairman of the government Kilraj Regmi. Pushpakamal Dahal was the first person to recommend Singh, a “disqualified” person to become the CIAA chair. Should not they be punished?