Soon after appealing to the Supreme Court against its own decision, in a legally controversial move, on the case of the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund distribution, the Royal Commission for Corruption Control (RCCC), in a written reply to the show-cause notice of the court, on Wednesday challenged the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the SC under Article 88 (1) on the ground that the apex court can examine only the laws passed by the parliament but not the orders issued by the King under Article 127. Hearing a case of public interest litigation that has challenged the extension of RCCC under Article 127 despite the withdrawal of the emergency orders, which, under Article 115 (7), had created it, the single bench of Justice Min Bahadur Rayamajhi had asked RCCC to explain why it should not be declared null and void. Moreover, RCCC also contended that as the order under under Article 127 has to be produced before the parliament, the court cannot examine it.

RCCC, dogged by intense controversy from the start, has given rise to several constitutional and legal confusions, and many, including the political parties and the Nepal Bar Association, have branded it as unconstitutional. Therefore, all these legal doubts need to be put to rest. RCCC clearly encroaches on the jurisdiction of the constitutionally formed Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority and the Special Court. Besides, it has also been given powers to investigate alleged corruption of any judge, contrary to the existing legal and constitutional process. As RCCC has tried to hide behind the shield of Article 127, the apex court will, naturally, have to interpret the scope of this article.

Unlike RCCC’s claim, the Supreme Court can examine any executive orders to test their legality, as it is the Supreme Court, and no one else, that has the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, though, obviously, it cannot amend it. The significance of the case in question goes beyond RCCC’s retention or otherwise. A number of serious constitutional and political issues and complications have evidently arisen from the SC’s failure to decide on the petition seeking the restoration of the Lower House. Not surprisingly, the SC has come under wide criticism for its failure to rise to the occasion to prevent the derailment of the Constitution; now is the time for the highest court to set about making amends.