KATHMANDU: Supreme Court’s interim order against the implementation of 16-point agreement has drawn mixed reactions from constitutional experts, with some opposing the order and others supporting it. READ ALSO: Correction will be sought from judiciary: Dahal Addressing an interaction organised by Reporters’ Club today, Chair of Nepal Bar Association Hari Krishna Karki said since the 16- point agreement was a political matter, the court should not have interfered. He said the court should have called all the parties involved to discuss the matter before passing an interim order. The SC passed the order yesterday. “Such order can divide the society and can unnecessarily drag the court into controversy,” Karki added. The 16- point agreement is a political matter, the court should not have interfered — Hari Krishna Karki, Chairman, Nepal Bar Association Constitutional lawyer Bhimarjun Acharya said it was not that the SC never took up political issues, but in this case the court deserves criticism for not ‘exhibiting judicial restraint’. “The 16-point agreement and Constitutional-Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee’s reports do not have legal status, therefore, the SC should not have done a judicial review on this matter,” he argued. Those who say the 16-point pact is a political issue must know that it was the apex court that limited the term of the first CA that led to the dissolution of the CA — Dipendra Jha, advocate Acharya said the SC’s interim order was guided by pradeshbad (provincialism), but there was nothing objectionable in four parties’ decision to settle federalism issues later. “Parties tried hard to clinch a deal on federalism but failed to do so. Eventually they realised that if they settle all issues at once, they might not be able to frame the constitution again, so this deal should not be contested,” he argued. Advocate Chandra Kant Gyawali said he had filed a case at the SC six years ago demanding formation of a federal commission, but the court said it was a political matter and refused to entertain it. Chair of Democratic Lawyers’ Association Gopal Krishna Ghimire termed the 16-point agreement a political document, but said the court’s order should be respected. “Those who are not satisfied with the court order can file a petition, seeking to vacate the interim order,” he argued. The court deserves criticism in this case for not exhibiting judicial restraint — Bhimarjun Acharya, constitutional lawyer Senior Advocate Mithilesh Kumar Singh, however, defended the interim order, saying there were many cases in the past when the court had taken up the political issues. He said if SC’s order was defied, it could invite chaos.   “If parties had political will, they could have resolved federalism issues in a day or two. Parties can consult the members of erstwhile State Restructuring Commission and can settle the federalism issue in 24 hours,” he said, adding that the two other federal nations of South Asia — India and Pakistan — promulgated their constitution incorporating all the provisions of federalism in the constitutions. Nepal’s Former Ambassador to Denmark Vijay Kant Karna, who filed the writ against the 16-point pact, said the Interim Constitution had laid down certain principles which should not be bypassed. “Framing a democratic constitution also means following a democratic process,” he argued. Advocate Dipendra Jha, who had argued in the court on behalf of the petitioners, said since CPDCC’s report quoted the 16-point agreements in many places, the 16-point act had now become a constitutional document and hence it was okay for the SC to do a judicial review of it. He said those who were arguing that the 16-point agreement was a political issue must know that it was the SC that limited the term of the first CA that led to the dissolution of the CA. On June 8, the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Unified CPN-Maoist and Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum-Democratic had signed the deal.