By Our Reporter
The Supreme Court has again rejected the appeal made by former Princess Prerana Rajya Laxmi Devi Shah claiming a daughter’s right on the property gifted by her father the then King Gyanendra.
A constitutional bench of five justices, including Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, justices Mira Khadka, Hari Krishna Karki, Anil Kumar Sinha and Prakash Man Singh Raut gave the verdict saying that the Chhauni-based land gifted by the then King Gyanendra to his daughter belonged to the Nepal Trust.
The constitutional bench comprised of CJ Rana and Justices are actually biased.
RPP chairman Kamal Thapa, expressing his remarks against the verdict, has stated that loktantra will not become strong from hijacking a daughter’s rights. He has also expressed surprise on the silence of the women’s rights activists in this case.
Accordingly, academician Keshab Prasad Bhattarai has raised some legal questions on the court verdict and rule of law.
Bhattarai has explained that how an individual’s rights has been abducted by the court.
He has described that as per the existing law, if there is no heir of anybody, the closest claimant heir will get his property. As all heirs of King Birendra’s family were already murdered, King Gyanendra was the closest heir of King Birendra.
In accordance to Nepal’s law, King Gyanendra is the closest claimant heir to receive King Birendra’s private property.
Some portion of the very land, king Gyanendra had gifted to his daughter.
The government, later decided to nationalize the private property of King Birendra, which is illegal and injustice.
Furthermore, capturing the property gifted to a daughter by a father is an example of injustice.
In our religion and culture, to capture property already gifted to a daughter is a big crime.
The King who has become a commoner, didn’t get the opportunity to enjoy the property right enjoyed by other commoners. This is a serious violation of an individual’s rights on property.
More serious, 90 percent of King Birendra’s nationalized properties are being enjoyed by a business group close to the ruling party virtually at free of cost.
Again, the court, to please the government and the street, became the partner of the government’s unjust act.
Will the same court verdict be applicable in other individuals’ case? Will it apply with the case of the justices also, Bhattarai has questioned.