KATHMANDU: Expressing optimism over the promulgation of the new constitution by the Constituent Assembly within six-month period, the Supreme Court (SC) today ruled out possibilities of election to the local bodies within this period.

Responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed at the SC demanding the apex court’s intervention to hold the local bodies' election, a division bench of justices Bala Ram KC and Bharat Raj Upreti issued the verdict.

"The whole nation is concentrated on drafting the new constitution within six months as per Article 64 of the Interim Constitution. Hence, the election to the local bodies cannot be held as per the Article 139 due to transitional politics. So, the court doesn't consider issuing mandamus to the government in holding the elections," the bench observed.

The bench, however, drew the government's attention over the situation of not ensuring the rights of the people to be ruled through their own representatives. "It was the duty of the government to implement the letter and spirit of the Constitution to hold the election to ensure the rights of the people," the bench stated.

Saying that Article 139 (2) of the Constitution has a provision of formation of all party-mechanism, the apex court decided to draw the attention of the government for not holding the local bodies' election in the past few years after the promulgation of the Interim Constitution.

The interpretation came in response to a PIL filed by a group of advocates Chandra Kanta Gyawali, Parshu Ram Upadhyaya and Bimal Gyawali in April 2008.

"The country is under transitional phase and shifting the nation from one constitutional system to another therefore it cannot direct the government to hold elections right now," the bench observed.

Stating that there was a requirement of operating local bodies through the elected representatives, it said that the government had failed to hold elections though there were no obstacles in holding the elections because peace has been prevailed as per the Comprehensive Peace Accord.

In another context, the SC said democracy and representatives' nomination could not go together, the apex court added that Article 34 of the Interim Constitution has ruled out operation of the local bodies through nominated representatives.

"The government had to hold the election to the local bodies but it did not although it has been mentioned in the directive principles of the state policies," he added.

Stating that the constitution has a provision of nomination of representatives in local bodies through the fifth amendment in the Constitution unless before holding elections, the SC ruled out operating local bodies through such nominated representatives.