KATHMANDU, JUNE 23

A division bench of Supreme Court Justices Ananda Mohan Bhattarai and Kumar Regmi said that it decided to vacate the interim order passed by the single bench of Justice Manjoj Kumar Sharma as prima facie case did not support the argument that the citizenship bill was illegal.

The division bench stated this in an order it passed yesterday and prepared today vacating the single bench's short-term stay order against the citizenship bill challenged by senior advocates Surendra Bhandari and Bal Krishna Neupane.

Issuing the order today, the bench stated that the issues raised by the petitioners would be settled in the final verdict.

The division bench dismissed the petitioners' claim that the citizenship bill had died with the end of the tenure of House of Representatives before the parliamentary elections that were held in April.

The Supreme Court said that the citizenship bill, which was passed twice by the Parliament before the April election could not be termed invalid or null and void on account of the end of House of Representatives' tenure because the bill was not under the Parliament's consideration.

This was stated in the order passed by the division bench of Justices Ananda Mohan Bhattarai and Kumar Regmi in response to a writ petition filed by Bhandari and Neupane against the Office of the President and others for authenticating the citizenship bill that had been pocket-vetoed by former president Bidhya Devi Bhandari, which many jurists termed an unconstitutional move.

Petitioners had argued that the bill lapsed or it became invalid as the five-year tenure of the HoR ended when the citizenship bill was sent to the president twice and the bill was under former president Bidhya Devi Bhandari's consideration.

The court said that the photocopies of the citizenship bill submitted by the President's Office showed the name of Bidhya Devi Bhandari as president in the bill and current President Ramchandra Paudel affixed his signature on May 31 stating 'authenticated.

Stating that Article 10 of the constitution stipulated that no citizen shall be deprived of citizenship and there are provisions related to citizenship in the constitution from Article 10 to 15, the division bench said the citizenship bill was brought to amend the existing citizenship Act to implement the constitutional provisions and it was thus passed twice by the Parliament.

The bench said such a bill cannot be deemed under consideration of both Houses within the meaning of the proviso of Article 111(10) and hence it cannot be concluded that the bill became ineffective on grounds of the end of House of Representatives 'tenure.

The SC said that the Council of Ministers had urged the president to authenticate the citizenship bill keeping in mind the complexities and situation of statelessness caused by non-authentication of the bill (by the former president) and also that the president had paid attention to Article 61 and 66 of the constitution.

Article 111 (10) of the constitution stipulates: Even though a session of a House is prorogued while a Bill is under its consideration, deliberations on the Bill may continue in the succeeding session.

Provided that in case the House of Representatives is dissolved or its term expires when any Bill introduced in the House of Representatives is under its consideration or when any Bill adopted by the House of Representatives is under consideration in the National Assembly, such Bill shall lapse.

Article 61 of the constitution stipulates that the president shall abide by and protect the constitution.

Article 66 of the constitution stipulates that the president shall perform his/her functions on the recommendation and with the consent of the Council of Ministers.

A version of this article appears in the print on June 24, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.