Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi today filed a public interest litigation at the Supreme Court demanding that recommendations made by the Constitutional Council for appointment to constitutional bodies be quashed as they were made with mala fide intention.

Tripathi argued that since the Constitutional Council's recommendations were sent to the Parliament Secretariat after the HoR had already been dissolved, it was prima facie illegal. He stated in his petition that the government must abide by the legal provision that mandated parliamentary hearings for those nominated for appointment to constitutional bodies.

The petitioner also argued that as per the Constitutional Council Act, the council was supposed to notify council members 48 hours before a meeting, but on December 15, the government issued the controversial ordinance to amend the provisions of the Constitutional Council Act and called the council's meeting at 5:00pm the same day.

Tripathi said the government acted with mala fide intention to wrest control of constitutional bodies, bypassing parliamentary oversight.

Stating that constitutional bodies were anti-majoritarian measures to check the government's excesses, he argued that if the executive succeeded in controlling appointments in constitutional bodies that would weaken the checks and balance system. He urged the court to quash the appointments made to constitutional bodies. The petitioner asked the court to stay the newly appointed office bearers from assuming office.

A version of this article appears in the print on February 4, 2021, of The Himalayan Times.