Controversy Over Vice-President’s Oath In Hindi

Siddhi B. Ranjitkar

On July 23, 2008, Vice-president-elect Permananda Jha took the oath in Hindi from President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav provoking most of Nepalis to protest against it. Controversy over taking oath in other Nepalese languages other than Nepali has started in 2007 when the then Maoist-appointee Matrika Yadav for the Minister for Forest took the oath from the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in his own language rather than in Nepali as prescribed by the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007. Then, other ministers have followed the suit.

On Friday, July 24, 2009, in the historic ruling, the bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal has annulled the oath taken by the then vice-president elect in Hindi on July 23, 2008 saying it goes against the Clause 36 (i) (2) and Annex I (a) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007. This ruling of the Supreme Court of Nepal has two implications: legal and political.

The legal implication is that Vice-president Permananda Jha has been reduced to the status of the elected person to the position of the Vice-president. His functioning as the Vice-president has been invalidated since the declaration of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nepal until Mr. Jha again takes the oath from the President in Nepali. The ruling also has set the precedent of everybody requiring taking oath in Nepali until the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 is amended for including all languages spoken in Nepal for taking the oath of office.

On July 23, 2008, the then Vice-president elect Permananda Jha bullied the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 and the President as well taking the oath in Hindi while the President was swearing him in Nepali. The political situation was so that the President had no guts to tell the then Vice-president elect to take the oath in Nepali.

Nepalis urgently need the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nepal on the cases such as whether the current ceremonial President directly writing a letter to the Chief of Army Staff Rukmangad Katuwal ordering him to stay on in the job against the decision of the elected Prime Minister Prachanda to fire Katuwal and appoint another person to the Chief of Army staff is constitutional or not, and the Chief of Army Staff Rukmangad Katuwal reducing his age by the order of the former King Birendra pending at the Supreme Court of Nepal is right or wrong.

The Supreme Court’s decision on the case of the ceremonial President taking an active administrative action is constitutional or not is urgently needed to end the current political confusion that has made possible Madhav Nepal rejected by voters in two constituencies to be the Prime Minister and to claim to be the elected person by the people. This political development has been a great deceit to the people who have aspired for democracy means at least the Chief Executive called Prime Minister in the Nepalese context needs to be an elected person.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the age of the Chief of Army Staff Rukmangad Katuwal is equally important to end the current practice of the army men and the policemen committing crimes with impunity. One of the main reasons for the state employees committing crimes with impunity is the delay in delivering justices in Nepal. In 2009, the case of Katuwal reducing his age has been pending at the Supreme Court of Nepal for the last three years, as the Army Headquarters located at a few hundred meters west of the Supreme Court of Nepal has failed to send the dossier containing the personal data of the Army Chief Katuwal. It would be better for the country if the cases of the Army headquarters disobeying the order of the Supreme Court of Nepal and whether the Army Chief Katuwal has committed a crime in reducing his age by the direct order of the then King Birendra or not were settled as soon as possible.

We have seen that the results of some of the rulings of the Supreme Court of Nepal have adversely affected the politics in Nepal. For example, in 1995, the Supreme Court of Nepal has ruled that the then-Prime Minister Manmohan Adhikari has no rights to dissolve the parliament and to announce the general elections, as he is the Prime Minister of the minority government; so, the Supreme Court reinstated the dissolved parliament. The political consequences of reinstating dissolved parliament were disastrous to the country. Nepalis needed to launch another people’s movement to tear down the monarchy that had usurped the power from the people and even needed to end its existence shedding blood of thousands of people.

In 2006 before the declaration of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal gave an audience to the allegedly corrupt former ministers such as Khum Bahadur Khadga, Govinda Raj Joshi belonging to the Nepali Congress, and Rabindranath Sharma of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party according to the local press. At that time, the cases of corruption against them were pending at the Supreme Court of Nepal.

Just before the declaration of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007, the Supreme Court of Nepal acquitted allegedly corrupt former ministers such as Khum Bahadur Khadga, Govinda Raj Joshi and Rabindranath Sharma from the charges on the technical ground. The result is such allegedly corrupt politicians have become the members of the newly formed parliament of 330 members in 2007.

In 2009, in one of his public speeches, President of Nepal Bar Associating Biswokanta Mainali has said that the appointment to the position of justices of the Supreme Court of Nepal is a license to corruption. The full bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal has ruled to stop President Mainali from pleading in any law courts in Nepal for six months. In a showdown, the members of the Nepal Bar Association boycotted the legal proceedings in any courts protesting the ruling of the full bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal on denying their President Mainali the legal practice for six months. Ultimately, the full Bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal reverted the ruling and let President Mainali continue his legal practice.

Former Prime Minister and President of Nepali Congress Girija Prasad Koirala has said that the Supreme Court of Nepal has been functioning as a branch of the palace in 2005. This has been a case of the contempt of court at the Supreme Court of Nepal for last four years. However, the Supreme Court of Nepal has cleared off Former Prime Minister and President of Nepali Congress Girija Prasad Koirala from the case of the contempt of court in 2009.

More than a decade ago, the Supreme Court of Nepal has ruled that the then municipalities such as Kathmandu and Janakpur could not use Nepal Bhasa and Maithili languages in their official businesses. Since then, Nevahs have been observing this day of the Supreme Court’s ruling on denying the use of Nepal Bhasa and Maithili in their official businesses as the black day.

Permananda Jha was the candidate of the Madheshi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) for Vice-president, and was elected by the majority votes of the legislature-parliament in 2008. Disregarding the provision made in the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007, Mr. Jha took the oath in Hindi whereas President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav was swearing him in Nepali. This has been not only the political anarchy but also the legal anarchy, too. So, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nepal on annulling the oath of office of the Vice-president taken by Permananda Jha in Hindi has been the most important ruling in the history of the judiciary of Nepal for disciplining the chronically corruption-plagued politicians.

The anarchism in taking oath by ministers in the language of their choice has set since the then-Maoist appointee Matrika Yadav for the Minister for Forest took the oath in his own language disregarding the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala swearing him in Nepali. In April 2007, following the deal the then Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) has reached with the seven-party alliance-coalition government led by Girija Prasad Koirala has inducted six members of the CPN-Maoist. One of them was Matrika Yadav. Sometimes, strong-minded Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala became so weak he could not enforce the provision made in the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 for taking the oath of office in Nepali. In fact, Prime Minister Koirala himself had enjoyed disregarding legal provisions made in various laws for taking official decisions and enjoyed to be a dictator while working in the capacity of acting as the President of the Nepali Congress.

The anarchism in taking oath by ministers in the language of their choice has continued even at the time of Prime Minister Madhav Nepal defeated in two constituencies swearing in his ministers. So, ministers have taken the oath of office in the language of their choice without anybody pointing a finger at them that they have violated the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 taking the oath of office in other languages other than Nepali.

The Kantipur Report of July 25, 2009 has it that talking to the reporters in the Sunsari District on Saturday July 24, 2009, Chairman of MPRF Upendra Yadav has said that the Supreme Court’s ruling on annulling the Vice-president taking oath in Hindi has been lopsided, unconstitutional and against the democratic norms.

First, Chairman of MPRF Yadav stating the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nepal on the Vice-president taking oath in Hindi is a lopsided one has been subjected himself to a contempt of court case. Second, how could he say that the Supreme Court’ decision has been unconstitutional when the Supreme Court of Nepal has defended the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 invalidating the oath in Hindi taken by the Vice-president disregarding the provision made in the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 for taking the oath of office in Nepali not in the language of his/her choice. Chairman Yadav has said that the Supreme Court’s ruling on annulling the Vice-president taking oath in Hindi has been against the democratic norms. If this statement is of Chairman Yadav then he needs to go back to a political school to learn something about democracy.

Concerning the inclusiveness, the author is very much for including every language spoken in Nepal in the Constitution of Nepal for taking oath or even for an official business. The author has been very happy to see all the members of the Constituent Assembly wearing their regular dresses rather than the so-called uniform imposed by the previous regime on the state officials at the time of taking the oath of office. However, the author does not tolerate the politicians taking the oath of office of the elected positions disregarding the constitutional provision and bullying the constitution only to show how faithful they are to their people. Such tendency of the corrupt politicians has made the criminals going free with impunity and the hundreds of innocent people the victims of such criminals. The rule of law is for all to follow. If anybody wants to take an oath in the language of his/her choice first s/he must make sure that the Constitution of Nepal has the provision for it.

Legal advisors to the Prime Minister have counseled him to take a middle course to resolve the issue of the oath in Hindi either amending the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 or appealing the Supreme Court of Nepal to review the ruling on the oath in Hindi; at the same time, the Vice-president needs not to do any official work until the issue of the oath in Hindi is resolved.

Political anarchism has crossed the limit, and politicians have been attempting to infect the anarchism in the judiciary, too. It is time for all Nepalis to end the political anarchism at any cost otherwise the chronically corruption-plagued politicians would ruin the country.  All Nepalis need to stop the politicians from disregarding the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007. Nepalis need to rise up against such politicians from saving the country falling in the political anarchism. To this end, first, Nepalis need to force the ceremonial President to take back his unconstitutional action and then remove the not-elected Prime Minister from the position.

July 29, 2009.