Since the royal takeover of October 4, 2002, the Raj Parishad has been pursuing the single agenda of promoting active monarchy, thus seeking to strike at the roots of the Constitution. In the process, it has levelled unbecoming allegations against the political parties and their leaders, denigrated the multiparty democracy and urged the King to tighten his grip on power further. This year, too, it has completed four regional conferences and is shortly to hold a central one. At its central regional conference that got under way on Wednesday, it focused on making the upcoming civic polls a success. On the occasion, former Panchas, cabinet vice chairman Kirtinidhi Bista, Raj Parishad standing committee chairman Parashu Narayan Chaudhary and former army chief Sachchit Shumsher Rana again lambasted the political parties and their 12-point agreement with the Maoists, besides lauding the royal road map.

The presence of Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel, however, looked somewhat odd because, though the CJ is an ex-officio member of the Parishad, it gave a wrong signal to the public. While the Parishad seems hostile to the constitutional provisions of multiparty parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, the presence of the CJ, head of an independent institution entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the Constitution in both letter and spirit, appears to dilute the judiciary’s role and to give greater credence to the lack of faith shown by the Nepal Bar Association in his leadership of the nation’s judiciary. Even a layman knows that the Constitution does not allow the Parishad to organise political conferences, leave alone lambasting the political parties and instigating the King to be active.

Under the Constitution, the Parishad’s functions are limited to declaring a successor to the Throne or the Regent under prescribed circumstances.

And the functions of the standing committee of the Parishad, according to the Constitution, are two-fold: first, to submit recommendations on matters referred to it by the King, and to carry out the functions relating to the royal family as specified by the King. Even if one were to ignore, for the sake of argument, Article 35 (2), the question does arise whether the King indeed has asked for recommendations from the standing committee and, if so, on what matters and when. The public has the right to know. Even if not, condoning the Parishad’s extra-constitutional activities would not reflect positively on the palace. Therefore, this political acrobatics of the Parishad must stop immediately.