Key Takeaways:
- Supreme Court declined to issue an interim order in the budget dispute
- Petition challenged plans to revise a budget already presented in the assembly
- Court said the legal question should be settled during the final hearing
- Status of the proposed budget revision remains subject to the final verdict
The Supreme Court has declined to issue an interim order in a dispute over the Sudurpaschim provincial government's proposed revision of its budget, leaving the underlying legal question to be settled during the final hearing of the case.
A joint bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Balkrishna Dhakal rejected the interim relief sought by advocate Maniram Upadhyay in a writ petition filed against the Office of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers of Sudurpaschim Province and other respondents.
The petition argued that a new government could not substantially alter a finance bill already registered in the provincial assembly after a change in government and before the budget had been passed.
According to the petition, the previous government presented the budget in the provincial assembly in June, but the provincial government changed on June 20 before the budget received approval.
Upadhyay had sought an interim order to prevent the provincial government from moving ahead with the proposed budget revision.
In its order, the Supreme Court said the question of whether a provincial government has the authority to make substantive changes to a budget after it has been presented should be determined during the final adjudication of the case.
The bench concluded that there was no immediate need to issue the interim order requested by the petitioner.
The court referred to constitutional provisions, the Sudurpaschim Provincial Assembly Rules and relevant sections of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangement Act, 2017 while considering the dispute.
The order also discussed legal provisions relating to the withdrawal of bills and the presentation of supplementary estimates by the finance minister.
However, the court clarified that its refusal to grant interim relief does not amount to a final ruling on whether the provincial government is legally entitled to substantially revise the budget.
That issue will be decided when the writ petition is heard on its merits.
The court's eventual ruling is expected to clarify the extent of a provincial government's authority to revise a budget that has already been presented to the provincial assembly but not yet enacted.
