Forgot your password?
Quashing Provisions Made In Human Rights Laws Conflicting With Constitution
By KTM Metro Reporter
March 8, 2013: hearing on the case filed by Advocate Om Prakash Aryal at the Supreme Court of Nepal in April 2012, the Special Bench of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi and Justices such as Ram Kumar Prasad Shah and Girish Chandra Lal has quashed the provision made for the need for filing the cases of human rights violation within six months in the Article 10 (5) of the National Human Rights Commission Act of 2012 stating it conflicts with the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007. So, there is no time limit for filing the human rights cases.
Similarly, the Special Bench has quashed the Article 17 (10) of the National Human Rights Commission Act of 2012 that gave the Attorney General the discretionary power of not filling the cases recommended by the National Human Rights Commission, thus curbing the discretionary power of the Attorney General stating it also conflicts with the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007.
The Special Bench also has squashed the provision made for “the Attorney General has to give full details of the cases recommended by the National Human Rights Commission following the Article 132 (2) (c) if the Attorney General opts not to file the cases following the prevailing laws” stating it conflicts the Article 132 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007, according to the ‘gorkhapatra’ news of March 7, 2013.
