Dr Tulsi Giri, the first vice chairman in the Cabinet, has attacked the judiciary for its widely acclaimed judgement on the controversial royal commission on corruption control. Addressing a gathering of pro-palace journalists on Thursday, he branded the verdict ‘judicial anarchy’. He also read out portions of the Constitution, an uncanny habit he seems to have cultivated post-February 1 (last year), to suit his predilections and claim royal powers the Constitution does not grant. The Supreme Court verdict, which sent some tremors through the active-monarchy camp, seems to have reminded him of the need for checks and balances and of the need for the parliament, which alone is empowered to take action against any apex court judge. Certainly, taken out of context, his remarks could wrongly project Dr Giri as a great democrat to those uninitiated into Nepali politics.

For a man who had said post-February 1 that he had, since the introduction of Panchayat, mortgaged his sense of right and wrong to the monarchy, it may not be unusual to speak things which are downright bizarre or outrageous to those who value democracy and supremacy of the people. If he had not been Number Two in the King-led Cabinet, his comment would have passed without much notice, but it carries importance just because it tends to reflect the mindset of his boss. Even more galling to Dr Giri than the scrapping of the RCCC must be the five-member bench’s pronouncement on where the sovereignty lies and who is the source of state powers, as well as the limits of Article 127. The public is likely to think that Dr Giri’s statements, coming as they do some four weeks after the verdict, could not have been made on the spur of the moment, notwithstanding the damage-control remarks made post-haste by two of his Cabinet colleagues.

What the Supreme Court said is clearly stipulated in the 1990 Constitution. What Dr Giri and his likes have been trying to do is to subordinate the Constitution to an unelected power centre. A lecture on constitutionality by a person who holds a post in flagrant contravention of the Constitution is nothing but third-degree hypocrisy. Citing problems of democracy in other countries can hardly justify the actions of those who helped themseves to power at home. Few in Nepal or abroad are ready to get bamboozled by Dr Giri’s version of ‘democracy’. If those in power are not happy with this Constitution, as most certainly they aren’t, they should have the guts to scrap it. But as long as it is not declared dead, they cannot maul it the way they like — just can’t.