KATHMANDU, NOVEMBER 16
The Office of the President has written to the Supreme Court that President Bidhya Devi Bhandari refused assent to the citizenship bill as it was against national interest and parliamentary regulations were violated while passing it.
Secretary at the Office of the President Yadav Prasad Koirala submitted the written reply through the Attorney General's Office yesterday arguing that the president acted as a protector of the constitution while deciding to refuse her assent to the bill.
"The president refused her assent to the bill as it was in conflict with the constitution and it violated rules and procedures."
The president's office stated that the House must consider a bill resent by the president in accordance with Article 113 (3) of the constitution and the spirit of Article 113 (4) was that the members of the Parliament must get an opportunity to move amendment proposals against the provisions of the bill. This process was not followed in the citizenship bill, the President's Office argued in the reply. This bill was passed without allowing a chance for review, it added.
The bill that was under consideration of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives had to be passed but it was brought with some minor changes in the current Citizenship Act which was an affront to the Parliament, the President's Office argued.
Office of President's arguments for not giving assent to the bill
• The government's act of withdrawing the citizenship bill that was under consideration of the Parliament for three years and bringing a new bill with the provision to amend some minor changes in the current citizenship act without offering any reasons is a violation of the doctrine of constitutional accountability
• The president has kept the bill on hold in accordance with the constitution, orders passed by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions, and universal practices
• The bill violates Articles 10 and 15 of the constitution. The president's role in parliamentary business such as summoning of the Parliament session in accordance with Article 93, proroguing of Parliament session in accordance with Article 95, and granting the seal of approval as provisioned by Article 113 conforms to the principle of the president in Parliament which is akin to the king in Parliament as practiced in the United Kingdom
• Presidential veto has been accepted in countries like Nepal where there are constitutional presidents (ceremonial presidents) in their own relative contexts
• The president is the highest authority in the executive as she administers the oath of office and secrecy to the prime minister and as the prime minister is mandated by Article 81 to inform the president on bills to be introduced in the Parliament
• The PM did not inform the president in advance about the citizenship bill, violating Article 48 (a) of the constitution
• Citizenship is not a matter to be decided on the basis of majority versus minority
• No law that violates the rights of real citizens can be valid
• The decision to put the citizenship bill on hold does not violate the constitution but protects the constitution as the government withdrew the original bill and brought a new bill without offering any justifiable reasons
• Nepal's constitution does not state what will happen when the president refuses her assent to a bill
• The president returned the bill with the objective of pricking the national conscience to improve the citizenship bill. This should be accepted as an exception, not as a precedent
• The president refused her assent to the bill as the Parliament did not follow the due process of law stipulated in the parliamentary regulations
• National interests and nationalism should be taken into account while enacting citizenship law
• Broader participation and discussion is needed on the citizenship bill. Such a discussion will help find a long-lasting solution to citizenship problems that have remained unresolved since 1952
• If the constitution has to be amended to make the citizenship law in accordance with national interests, then it is the state's responsibility to do so
• Since the president is the guardian of all organs of the state-legislature, executive, and judiciary, all these organs need to coordinate and cooperate with the institution of the president
• The president and the vice-president are immune from lawsuits for performing their constitutional duties
• Writ petition cannot revive a bill which has already been invalidated
• The SC should quash the writ petition and should order relevant parties to make a just, reasonable, and predictable citizenship law exercising legislative wisdom
• Petitioners filed writ petitions with malicious intentions and the court's decision to entertain the case not only violates the law but also undermines the prestige of the president's office
A version of this article appears in the print on November 17, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.
