SC moved to vacate stay on withdrawal of cases
Kathmandu, February 22:
The government today filed a plea at the Supreme Court seeking the apex court order to vacate its stay order issued on January 1, which directed the government to stop the withdrawal of cases sub judice at different courts.
The government claims that the stay order of the Supreme Court had created a hurdle in the implementation of Comprehensive Peace Accord.
“Since it is the part of the Interim Constitution, it is the duty of the government to implement the Comprehensive Peace Accord or else the government cannot move the peace process forward,” the government argued.
Stating that the stay order has created an adverse impact in the state mechanism, the government urged the Supreme Court to cancel the order.
Secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Dr Kul Ratna Bhurtel filed the plea to vacate the stay order issued by a single bench of Justice Bala Ram KC.
“The decision passed by the government on October 27 was based on the CPA signed between the state party and the Maoists.
The decision to withdraw the cases was based on the same. But the stay order created a hurdle in the state mechanism,” Dr Bhurtel argued in the petition.
The government had decided to withdraw 349 cases — including 91 murder cases, 44 dacoity cases, 38 theft cases, 32 arson cases and 31 attempt to murder cases — from the courts.
The Secretary, in his plea, however, claimed that the government had withdrawn only the politically-motivated cases as per the Clause 5.2.7 of the CPA, which permits the government to withdraw baseless and politically-motivated cases.
Stating that the government has misused power by deciding to withdraw
criminal cases, the bench had directed the government to stop the process of
withdrawing cases, as the withdrawal of such criminal cases do not have any relation with the peace process in the country and political system. The apex court had said the government’s act was against the Government Case Act, 1992.
The government, however, claimed that the Act does not categorise which kind of cases can be withdrawn and which cannot.
The apex court had issued the stay order responding to a writ petition filed by three advocates.