Monday, July 6, 2015
SC report says reappointment of judge not good, scrapping provision on constitutional court
Do you like this story?
Kathmandu, July 5: A team of Justices at the Supreme
Court (SC) has come up with the suggestion that the new constitution
should not keep the provision of reappointing judges.
The three-member team coordinated by Justice Baidyanath Upadhyay has insisted on removing the provision of constitutional court (CC). Instead of the constitutional court, a separate constitutional division could be set up under the SC to look after the cases relating to the disputes on implementing the federal system.
Moreover, the SC has argued that once there is the constitutional court (CC), different interpretation of constitution and laws from the SC and CC would create confusion and anomaly.
The draft constitution has provided the CC in Article 141.
The report recommends appointing 30 justices, including the Chief Justice, in the Supreme Court for speedy justice adjudication. The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 has the provision for having 15 justices in the Supreme Court, besides the Chief Justice.
The report also suggests amending the Article 132 95) of the preliminary draft constitution which provides for sending on deputation the Chief Judge of the High Court to the Supreme Court for some time in case the pressure of cases in the latter is high.
Likewise, the report states that it would be appropriate to keep a bench of at least three justices in the Apex Court. It also suggests revising the age bar of retirement of the judges at all levels and making it 70 years.
The report proposes that anyone to be appointed the Chief Judge or Judge of the High Court should have at least 15 years of practice. However, the draft of the constitution states the practicing period at 10 years.
It proposes keeping the Federal Minister for Law and Justice, three senior-most justices of the Supreme Court and one legal practitioner each to be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Nepal Bar Association. RSS
--------
The three-member team coordinated by Justice Baidyanath Upadhyay has insisted on removing the provision of constitutional court (CC). Instead of the constitutional court, a separate constitutional division could be set up under the SC to look after the cases relating to the disputes on implementing the federal system.
Moreover, the SC has argued that once there is the constitutional court (CC), different interpretation of constitution and laws from the SC and CC would create confusion and anomaly.
The draft constitution has provided the CC in Article 141.
The report recommends appointing 30 justices, including the Chief Justice, in the Supreme Court for speedy justice adjudication. The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 has the provision for having 15 justices in the Supreme Court, besides the Chief Justice.
The report also suggests amending the Article 132 95) of the preliminary draft constitution which provides for sending on deputation the Chief Judge of the High Court to the Supreme Court for some time in case the pressure of cases in the latter is high.
Likewise, the report states that it would be appropriate to keep a bench of at least three justices in the Apex Court. It also suggests revising the age bar of retirement of the judges at all levels and making it 70 years.
The report proposes that anyone to be appointed the Chief Judge or Judge of the High Court should have at least 15 years of practice. However, the draft of the constitution states the practicing period at 10 years.
It proposes keeping the Federal Minister for Law and Justice, three senior-most justices of the Supreme Court and one legal practitioner each to be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Nepal Bar Association. RSS
--------
This post was written by: Author Name
Author description goes here. Author description goes here. Follow him on Twitter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Responses to “SC report says reappointment of judge not good, scrapping provision on constitutional court”
Post a Comment