KATHMANDU, SEPTEMBER 8
Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balendra Shah submitted a written reply to the Supreme Court on September 6 in relation to the contempt of court case against him demanding that the case be dismissed.
He also shared the written reply through his social media handle. The SC had ordered Mayor Shah to appear in court with a written clarification after Advocate Deepakraj Joshi filed the contempt of court case.
Shah had written a status on social media saying, 'Amend the constitution and give the court the right to pass the map'.
Joshi argued that this was in contempt of court and filed a contempt of court case against Shah saying that Shah had defamed the apex court.
Judge Harikrishna Karki had heard the petition and ordered him to appear and answer within seven days. In reply to the SC order, Shah submitted the written clarification within the deadline citing Clause (a) of Article 17(2) of the constitution which guarantees the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of thought and expression. He further stated that the writ was baseless as he had not obstructed any work of the SC.
Shah had posted on Facebook, "We earnestly request the Supreme Court to amend the constitution and give authority to pass the map and take action against structures built without passing the map."
The petitioner had called the post a 'negative and misleading' expression that should be considered as contempt of court and demanded action according to the law."
In response to the SC's order, Shah had called the petitioner's allegation baseless as there was no obstruction in the administration of justice or disobedience of the order or judgment of the Supreme Court. He further wrote that in an open society with democratic values, it was possible to express critical opinions without contradicting Section 17(1) of the Administration of Justice Act, 2073.
Clause (a) of Article 17(2) of the constitution guarantees the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of thought and expression and the exercise of the this right cannot be termed contempt of court and it is contrary to democratic values to try to create fear of punishment in a citizen by misinterpreting this clause in relation to an opinion regarding the work carried out by any organ or body of the state.
Shah wrote that people's faith in the court could be weakened by the petitioner's expectation that the court would deviate from the constitution.
He also wrote the courts of a democratic state could become more independent, strong and accountable only through constructive criticism.
Shah further said the dimensions of accountability of the mayor were not only legal, but he had to also balance the different dimensions of accountability when discussing through social media or any other means. If this freedom of expression was narrowed, the fundamental rights of metropolitan residents would also be curtailed. This aspect was overlooked by the petitioner.
He reminded that the law had also provided the head of Kathmandu Metropolitan City with a judicial role to some extent. He said the such judicial work was also a part of his official responsibility.
A version of this article appears in the print on September 9, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.
