KATHMANDU: One of the main reasons that Vice-President Paramananda Jha cited for not abiding by the Supreme Court verdict to take oath in Nepali was the linguistic rights of Madhesi people. He claimed that if he took fresh oath in Nepali, it would insult the non Nepali-speaking people of Nepal.

Even after the Supreme Court verdict, Jha said he would not surrender before the apex court justices and added that he was not bound to take fresh oath unless the people and political parties who he represented advised him to do so.

The apex court verdict has raised serious concern about the linguistic rights of the minorities though it was based on constitution and the existing legal provisions. It was issued in the wake of the Supreme Court verdict on 31 May 2001 that scrapped the use of local languages—Maithili, Bhojpuri and Newari in Siraha, Sunsari and Kathmandu municipalities — as official languages.

The minorities claim that these verdicts disregard their linguistic rights. They must, however, be aware that the court interprets the constitution and law and does not promulgate new laws to secure the rights. That authority is vested in the constitution-making body.

In a recent study conducted

by Coalition for Constituent Assembly Support, the people have

been demanding constitutional guarantee to use local languages, at the same time insisting to make Nepali the official language.

There has been a demand to give autonomous status to Limbuwan, respecting the rights of those residing there and recognising the local language as the official language.

People have been seeking the inclusion of the right to residence, food and governance in the constitution, while ensuring special rights and the other facilities for them on the basis of census.”It may not be possible to include all the rights that the people have been demanding in the constitution but their concerns can be addressed by the main law of the land,” Sabin Shrestha, an advocate of Forum for Women Law and Development opined. “People have been demanding to ensure the rights of the minorities in the preamble of the Constitution, which may not be possible. But we should focus on making them independent fundamental rights,” Shrestha added.

Stating that some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the interim constitution have not

been effectively implemented, as no separate law was promulgated regarding them, Shrestha said such a mistake should not be repeated in the next constitution.

The other demands of the people include acquiring citizenship certificates, birth registration certificates on mother’s name, right to religion, language, national dress and culture and recognition of local language as the official language. The concerned groups have also demanded constitutional guarantee to end exploitation of Dalits, bonded labourers like Kamaiyas, Haliyas and Badis.

Advocate Sherstha also emphasised the need to set up an independent body to monitor the rights implementation, as is the practice in many countries to monitor such rights. “Though the Supreme Court has the authority to implement such rights, setting up of a separate authority or providing such powers to the National Human Rights Commission or any other body may be more appropriate,” he added.

Advocate Ram Thapa, however, opined that state autonomy couldn’t be guaranteed in the constitution though it can be ensured in the civil rights. “Public can be empowered through the declaration of the autonomous states but this cannot be a fundamental right,” he added.