Kathmandu, October 17:

A Supreme Court (SC) figure shows that over 50 per cent verdicts of the apex court on policy-related issues are waiting execution for the past 10 years.

The SC figure shows that around 150 important directives were issued after the promulgation of the 1990 Constitution, but just a few have been implemented.

Twelve years after the issuance of an order by the apex court, the parliament promulgated the Right to Information Act 2007.

Among others, eight-year-old directives to prevent road construction on the banks of the Bagmati river; and execute Social Behaviour Reform Act 1976 are awaiting implementation.

A figure of the Monitoring Division of the SC states that over 150 directives were issued after 1990; but the execution level is extremely low. It had issued around 100 directives, 30 PIL directives and 27 non-PIL directives in a number of issues related to policy reform. The SC record shows that out of 150 directives issued during the period, 20 were implemented, 25 were not implemented and 26 are in the process of implementation.

The fate of other directives are unknown. Ten PIL directives were implemented, three were not implemented, while 17 are in the process of implementation.

Among 27 non-PIL directives, nine were implemented, three have not been implemented, while 14 directives are in the process of implementation.

Three years ago, the apex court had directed the Attorney-General to make procedure to compensate to road victims easy. The government is yet to follow the court order.

“We found that several orders were not implemented,” chief of the Monitoring Division of the SC, Shreekanta Baral, told this daily.

Four years ago, the SC had directed the government four year ago to promulgate an Act criminalise sexual harassment after conducting a study. The government is yet to implement the verdict.

Attorney-General Yagya Murti Banjade said it will take time to execute several SC directives because the “government has to draft policies and promulgate relevant Acts.”

“In some cases, the court had issued orders to several agencies at the same time, making it difficult to implement these orders.”