The new requirement that a government agency should first get the consent of the office of the attorney-general before it handles any case pending in a court of law seeks to make the government legally stronger. This means, from now on, no government office is authorised to submit any reply or explanation to the court without consulting OAG. Previously, officials used to do this first and then request the help of OAG lawyers to defend the government. For example, the now defunct Royal Commission on Corruption Control had sought OAG’s assistance only after submitting its written reply to the Supreme Court. Before filing a case in a court of law, however, prior consent of OAG has been mandatory.

This procedure makes sense because the government is losing 80 per cent of the cases. According to Laxmi Bahadur Nirala, the recently appointed AG, this is the first time OAG has devised such a strategy. The AG is a statutory appointee as the chief legal advisor to His Majesty’s Government, to which he is supposed to furnish opinion and advice on constitutional and legal matters. He also represents the government in law suits involving its rights, interests and concerns, and has the final authority to decide whether to initiate legal proceedings on the government’s behalf. Hence, the next logical step is that, until any case is decided, all government agencies should consult with the AG before acting on any court case.

Besides, the government would do well to start this process before taking any other steps which are of dubious legal merit or implementing the law where there is some ambivalence or lack of clarity. This would also help the government avoid awkward or embarrassing situations later on. But it depends much on the intention of those in power, who tend to think that they can get away with anything. The problem in Nepal is that even where law is clear, government authorities are seen to be violating it. For example, the Supreme Court had to order the Department of Commerce this week to file cases in the district court against violators of the Consumer Protection Act 2054 BS instead of sitting in judgement on them itself. Taking liberties with the law has been a common practice with government officials, including those in the security forces. In these difficult times when an unelected government rules, it is a matter of debate whether the AG will advise the government against resorting to legally indefensible actions. If the record of OAG after the royal takeover is anything to go by, reason for doubt is pretty strong.