More than the merit or the demerit of the case, it appears that ego seems to have occupied centre stage. The president appears to have felt ignored because the bill was sent without discussion in the federal parliament, while the government thinks that the commitment to address the presidential concerns is adequate enough
The use of the pocket veto by president Bidhya Devi Bhandari with regards to the Citizenship Bill has sparked off a controversy in the Nepali political arena. The bill was first returned by the president for necessary modification to the parliament as the suspensive veto with some suggestions. The parliament, however, returned the bill unchanged to the president the second time, assuring their incorporation in the regulations that will follow the enactment of the bill. As expected, the president neither accepted or rejected the bill and exercised the pocket veto.
This act of the president has invited more anguish and lesser appreciation.
Whilst the government led by the five-party coalition has described it as an insult and devaluation of democracy, the opposition, the Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML), has not offered any kind of comment even though its leader KP Oli accused the coalition government of insulting the office of the president.
Student wings of the parties in the government and the opposition have demonstrated in support as well as opposition to the president. Many political leaders have asked for the resignation of the president for the blatant violation of the constitution. Some have even gone to the extent of impeaching the president.
This political episode has raised the eyebrows of quite a few political observers.
A similar bill, both in letter and spirit, was presented as an ordinance by former Prime Minister Oli, and it was given a green signal by the president in an incredibly short span of time. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, which turned it null and void, saying that a sensitive issue like citizenship should be submitted after discussion in both the Houses of the parliament and should not be addressed through an ordinance. The citizenship bill with similar content sent to the president was returned for the first time and upon sending it unaltered by the parliament for the second time, the bill did not receive any approval.
The exercise of veto goes a long time back in the past. U.S. president James Madison was the first to exercise the pocket veto on two occasions in the year 1812. This was the time when King Girvana Yuddha was reigning in Nepal. Nepal was preparing for a war against the British during this time. In England, Queen Elizabeth the second never resorted to this means that makes the Westminster system so successful and secure due to the presence of multiple layers that the bill passes through.
Nearer to the country, in India, it was used for the first time by President Rajendra Prasad in the year 1954. Gyani Zail Singh and Abdul Kalam have also taken resort to this political course during their term of office in the years 1986 and 2006 respectively.
The president had suggested addressing the dignity of single mothers, citizenship with provincial identity and provisions relating to matrimonial naturalisation.
However, she had not considered it necessary to address these issues when the same bill was forwarded by former prime minister Oli. The government had assured the incorporation of these suggestions in the regulations that would follow the implementation of the bill.
Two different reactions to a similar incident reflected inconsistency in the presidential perception of the bill.
More than the merit or the demerit of the case, it appears that ego seems to have occupied centre stage.
On one hand, the president appears to have felt ignored because the bill was sent without discussion in the two Houses of the parliament.
The government on the other hand appears to be in the mindset that the commitment of the government to address the presidential concerns in the following regulations is more than adequate in the wake of the fact that the president did not consider it necessary to send the suggestions on the earlier occasion when it was sent as an ordinance by the former prime minister.
Whatever the internalities of the case, the right or wrong of the presidential action will be determined by the Supreme Court, it being the single authority to interpret the constitution.
The Supreme Court has already served a show cause notice to the office of the president in response to the petitions filed for not accepting the bill. It remains to be seen what kind of verdict will be given by the Supreme Court.
There is an interesting instance of court interference with regards to the pocket veto. The U.S. Senate had passed a bill in 1926 allowing the American Indians to sue for damages accruing from the loss of tribal lands. The U.S. constitution has provided that any bill which has not been vetoed nor passed by the president becomes a law after 10 days of its reception by the president unless prevented by the adjournment of the Congress, in which case it does not become a law.
It was sent to president Calvin Coolidge on June 24.
But the Congress adjourned on July 3, and by the time it opened on July 6, the bill had received neither the signature nor the veto. The Indians filed a petition in the United States Court of Claims, but they lost the case citing that the law was not enacted. The Supreme Court also confirmed the decision of the lower court in view of the wide practice of the pocket veto.
This may be so in the US, but the constitution has not made such a provision in Nepal. It might as well be and should be that the Court will give a verdict necessitating the president to pass the bill sent by both the Houses of parliament.
It will provide marginal respite to the constitution, which has already been battered time and again by the political parties, whether in the government or the opposition.
A version of this article appears in the print on September 28, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.
