राजनीतिको विफलतामा संविधानलाई दोष दिन मिल्दैन

जिवेश झा (बुधबार, असोज ३, २०८०, हिमाल खवरपत्रिका)

महँगी बढ्नु, युवाहरू विदेशिनु जस्ता समस्या राज्यका राजनीतिक संयन्त्रको विफलताका कारण निम्तिएका हुन्। यसमा संविधान दोषी छैन। सरकारको कमजोरीलाई संविधानको कमजोरी भन्न मिल्दैन।

जिवेश झा

प्राकृतिक न्यायको वकालत गर्ने दार्शनिक रुसोका अनुसार कानूनले जनताको इच्छाको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छ। संविधान पनि देशको सर्वोच्च कानून भएकाले नेपालको संविधानले नेपालीको साझा इच्छाको प्रतिनिधित्व गरेको छ।

विकास, समृद्धि, समावेशिता, समानता, सुशासन, पारदर्शिता लगायत विषयलाई मलजल गर्न नेपालको संविधानले अग्रगामी प्रावधानहरूलाई अघि सारेको छ। सीमान्तीकृत वर्गलाई राज्यका निकायमा समावेशी सिद्धान्तका आधारमा पहुँच गराउने, विधायिकामा महिलाका लागि ३३ प्रतिशतको आरक्षण हुने जस्ता व्यवस्थाले नेपालको संविधानलाई अग्रगामी प्रावधानको सँगालो बनाएको छ।

नेपालको संविधानले न कसैलाई राज्यविहीन बनाएको छ न त कसैलाई भेदभाव गरेको छ। भाग २ मा संविधानले नागरिकता सम्बन्धी व्यवस्था गरेको छ। जस सांगुइनिस सिद्धान्तलाई पालना गर्दै ‘ब्लडलाइन’ का आधारमा नागरिकता दिने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ। बाबु र आमा दुवै नेपाली नागरिक भएको हकमा तिनका सन्तान वंशजका आधारमा नागरिकता पाउन योग्य हुने प्रावधान छ।

यस्तै, विदेशीसँग विवाह गरेकी नेपाली महिलाबाट जन्मेको व्यक्तिले बुबाको देशको नागरिकता प्राप्त नगरेको प्रमाणित भएमा र नेपालीसँग विवाह गरेकी विदेशी महिलाले अङ्गीकृत नागरिकता पाउने व्यवस्था छ।

बुबा नेपाली नागरिक र आमा अन्यथा भएका व्यक्तिलाई समेत वंशजका आधारमा नागरिकता प्रदान गरिने भनी नागरिकता ऐन, २०६३ लाई संशोधन गर्न २०७९ मा ल्याइएको संशोधन ऐनको प्रावधान छ।

भाग ३ मा संविधानले मौलिक हकको व्यवस्था गरेको छ, जहाँ आर्थिक र सांस्कृतिक हकलाई समेत मौलिक हकका रूपमा स्थापित गरेको छ।

उदाहरणका लागि आवासको हक, उपभोक्ताको हक, रोजगारीको हक लगायत आर्थिक तथा सामाजिक हकलाई मौलिक हकका रूपमा स्थापित गर्न खोजिएको छ। विचार तथा अभिव्यक्ति स्वतन्त्रताको हक, सञ्चारको हक, समानताको हक, न्याय सम्बन्धी हकले नागरिक तथा राजनीतिक हक स्थापित गर्न खोजेका छन्।

समावेशी सिद्धान्तका आधारमा सीमान्तीकृत वर्गलाई राज्यमा पहुँचको अधिकार स्थापित गरेर नेपालको संविधानले समानतालाई थप समृद्ध बनाउँदै समन्यायको अवधारणालाई थप जीवन्त बनाएको छ। मौलिक हकहरूले नेपालको संविधानलाई ‘अर्गानिक’ दस्तावेजका रूपमा चित्रण गरेका छन्।

दोष संविधानमा होइन नियतमा

२०७२ असोज ३ गते संविधान जारी भइरहँदा तराई-मधेशका सडकमा प्रदर्शन भइरहेको थियो। संविधान विरुद्ध जनलहर थियो। संविधान विरुद्धको प्रदर्शनमा ४० जनाभन्दा बढीको ज्यान गएको थियो। तर, संविधान जारी भएको दिनलाई पावन अवसर मानेर काठमाडौंमा भने दीपावली मनाइँदै थियो।

मधेशवादी दलहरूले नागरिकता, प्रदेशको सीमा विभाजन लागायत प्रावधानलाई मधेश विरोधी चित्रण गरेका थिए।  संविधानलाई मधेश विरोधी दस्तावेजको संज्ञा दिएका थिए। जनमानसमा संविधानप्रति वितृष्णा पैदा गराएका थिए। झन्डै पाँच महीना लामो नाकाबन्दी पनि गराइयो।

रुसोका अनुसार स्वतन्त्र व्यक्तिले स्वतन्त्र रूपमा इच्छाले केही अध्ययन गरेमा स्वतन्त्र विचारको निर्माण हुन्छ। संविधान जारी हुने वेला तथाकथित ‘मधेशका मसीहा’ हरूले गरेको संविधानको व्याख्यामा साम्प्रदायिक गन्ध प्रस्ट देखिन्थ्यो। धेरैजसोले आफैं संविधान पढेर स्वतन्त्र विचार निर्माण गरेका पनि थिएनन्। उनीहरूलाई दिग्भ्रमित पारिएको थियो। अर्थात् दोष संविधानमा होइन, सीमित समूहको नियतमा थियो।

यदि यो संविधान मधेश विरोधी नै थियो भने सत्तामा किन गइयो? ४० जनाको शहादत केका लागि भयो? तिनका घरपरिवारले के पाए? यस्ता प्रश्नको जवाफ अहिलेसम्म ती ‘मसीहा’ भनिनेहरूले दिएका छैनन्।

यस सन्दर्भमा दोषी सरकार पनि हो। जनसंख्याकाे ठूलो हिस्सा रहेको मधेशमा संविधानको मैथिली, भोजपुरी र अंग्रेजी संस्करण निःशुल्क वा सस्तो मूल्यमा उपलब्ध गराइनुपर्थ्यो। मधेशका ग्रामीण भेगको ठूलो हिस्सा अझै पनि नेपाली भाषा बुझ्दैन।

भाषाले मान्छेलाई जोड्छ, अपनत्व प्रदान गर्छ। संवैधानिक प्रावधानलाई स्थानीय भाषामा उल्था गरी संक्षिप्त वा बृहत् संस्करण जारी भएको भए जनमानसमा संविधान थप लोकप्रिय हुन्थ्यो।

भारतमा संविधानलाई विभिन्न स्थानीय भाषामा अनुवाद गरिएको छ। दक्षिण कोरियामा संवैधानिक प्रावधानलाई चित्रको माध्यमबाट सरल तरीकाले प्रस्तुत गरिएको छ। हामीले पनि कम्तीमा ‘प्रोपागान्डा’ चिर्न भए पनि यस्ता प्रयास अवलम्बन गर्नुपर्छ।

संघीय तथा एकात्मक व्यवस्थाको तुलनात्मक अध्ययन

नेपालको संवैधानिक व्यवस्था भारतीय संविधानसँग नजिक छ। हाम्रो संविधानले एकल नागरिकताको व्यवस्था गरेको छ। भारतीय संविधानले पनि एकल नागरिकताको अवधारणालाई अङ्गीकार गरेको छ। अमेरिकमा भने दोहोरो नागरिकताको प्रावधान प्रचलनमा छ.

नेपाल र भारतमा प्रदेशको आफ्नै संविधान छैन। प्रदेशले संविधानकै परिधिमा रहेर सरकार सञ्‍चालन र नीति निर्माण गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ। अमेरिकमा भने प्रदेशले छुट्टै संविधान निर्माण गर्न पाउँछ।

संघीय तथा प्रादेशिक लोक सेवा आयोगको परिकल्पना नेपालको संविधानको धारा २४२ ले गरेको छ। केही निश्चित प्रशासनिक पदहरूको विज्ञापन संघीय लोक सेवा आयोगले नै गर्न पाउने व्यवस्था हामीकहाँ छ। उच्चपदस्थ प्रशासनिक पदमा केन्द्रको कर्मचारी, प्रदेश र स्थानीय तहमा रहने अभ्यास छ। यस अर्थमा हाम्रो संघीयताको अभ्यास पनि भारतको भन्दा पृथक् छैन।

संवैधानिक परिषद्को सिफारिशमा राष्ट्रपतिले नियुक्त गर्ने महालेखा परीक्षकबाट सर्वोच्च अदालत, प्रदेश सभा, प्रदेश सरकार, स्थानीय तह, संवैधानिक निकाय, प्रहरी लगायत सबै संघीय, प्रादेशिक सरकारी निकायको लेखापरीक्षण हुने प्रावधान धारा २४१ मा छ। यो प्रावधानले संविधानको एकात्मक चरित्र प्रदर्शन गरेको छ।

प्रदेशको कानून संघीय कानूनसँग बाझिएमा सो हदसम्म बदर हुने व्यवस्था भारतमा पनि रहेको हुँदा यस अर्थमा पनि हामी भारतीय संविधानसँग नजिक छौं। 

तर, नेपालमा प्रदेश सरकारलाई अभियोजनको हक छैन। भारतमा भने प्रदेश सरकारलाई अभियोजनको हक छ। अर्थात्, भारतमा फौजदारी प्रकृतिको मुद्दामा प्रदेश सरकार वादी भएर मुद्दाको उठान हुने गरेकोमा हामीकहाँ नेपाल सरकार मात्र वादी हुने व्यवस्था छ। 

अभियोजन र अनुसन्धान गर्ने निकाय भारतमा प्रदेश सरकारको मातहतमा रहेकोमा नेपालमा भने संघीय सरकारकै मातहतमा रहेको पाइन्छ। नेपालमा फौजदारी कसूरमा प्रदेशलाई ‘प्रोसिक्युटोरल पावर’ छैन।

नेपालको संविधानले प्रदेशलाई उच्च अदालत र जिल्ला अदालतमा कर्मचारी र न्यायाधीश नियुक्त गर्न कुनै अधिकार प्रदान गरेको छैन। भारतमा भने प्रदेश सरकारलाई उच्च अदालत र जिल्ला अदालतमा कर्मचारी नियुक्त गर्न छूट छ।

संसदीय अभ्यासमा पनि भारत र नेपाल अलग छन्। अमेरिका, बेलायत, भारत र नेपालमा संसद् दुई सदनात्मक रहे पनि थोरै भिन्नता देखिन्छ।

भारतमा राष्ट्रपति, तल्लो सदन र माथिल्लो सदन मिलेर संसद् बनेको हुन्छ (भारतीय संविधानको धारा ७९) भने नेपाल र अमेरिकामा दुई सदन रहे पनि राष्ट्रपति संसद्को अभिन्न अङ्ग हुँदैनन्। बेलायतमा भने राजसंस्था सहितको दुई सदनात्मक संसदीय व्यवस्था प्रचलनमा छ।

त्यसैले भारतमा वा अमेरिकामा यी यी प्रावधान छन् र हामीकहाँ पनि त्यस्तै हुनुपर्छ भन्ने तर्क आउन सक्छ। तर, हाम्रो आर्थिक विपन्नता र सांस्कृतिक परिवेशले कहिलेकाहीं ती प्रावधान सहजै अङ्गीकार नहुन सक्छन्। र, यही कारण हाम्रो संघीयता कमजोर वा संवैधानिक व्यवस्था पूर्ण रूपले एकात्मक भएको भन्न मिल्दैन।

मनटेस्कयुले कानून निर्माण देशको काल, परिस्थिति र संस्कृतिको आधारमा हुनुपर्ने भनेका थिए। जस अनुसार नेपालको संघीयतामा मौलिकता छ।

भारतीय संविधानकै कुरा गर्दा प्राध्यापक व्हिरेले त्यसलाई अर्धसंघीय दस्तावेजको संज्ञा दिएका थिए। आइभर जेनिंग्सले भारतीय संविधानमा एकात्मक चरित्रको उपस्थिति/प्रदर्शन धेरै भएको प्रतिक्रिया दिएका थिए।

भारतको सर्वोच्च अदालतले पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य विरुद्ध युनियन अफ इन्डियाको मुद्दामा सन् १९६३ मा भारतीय संविधान पूर्ण रूपमा संघीय दस्तावेज नरहेको व्याख्या गरेको थियो। रेफरेन्स धारा १४३ (AIR 1965, SC 745) को मुद्दामा सन् १९६५ मा सर्वोच्च अदालतले भारतीय संविधानलाई संघीय दस्तावेजका रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरेको देखिन्छ। 

सन् १९७७ मा राजस्थान सरकार विरुद्ध युनियन अफ इन्डियाको मुद्दामा भारतीय संविधानमा एकात्मक चरित्र संघीय चरित्रभन्दा बढी पाइन्छ भनी सर्वोच्च अदालतले नजीर प्रतिपादन गरेको थियो। सतपाल विरुद्ध पञ्‍जाब राज्यको मुद्दामा सन् १९८२ मा भारतीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालयले भारतीय संविधान एकात्मक तथा संघीय प्रावधानको सम्मिश्रण रहेको हो भनी विवेचना गरेको थियो।

डा. भीमराव अम्बेडकरले भारतीय संविधानले दुई तहको सरकारको अवधारणा आत्मसात् गरेकाले भारतीय संविधान संघीयताको सिद्धान्त अवलम्बन गरेको संवैधानिक दस्तावेज रहेको भनेका थिए।

यसरी हेर्दा कठोरता र लचिलोपना देशको आन्तरिक आवश्यकता र देशले खोजेको मौलिकतामा आधारित हुन्छ। केही प्रावधान कठोर हुँदैमा वा कुनै क्षेत्रमा केन्द्र सरकारको भूमिका बढी देखिंदैमा संविधानलाई संघीयता विरोधी भन्न मिल्दैन।

पथप्रदर्शक हो संविधान

संविधान जारी भएपछि संविधानसभा भवनमा गरिएको आतसबाजी। तस्वीर: हिमालखबर आर्काइभ

नेपालको संविधान र यसमा निहित संघीयताको सिद्धान्त, समावेशी सिद्दान्तको अवधारणा र पालनामा जोड, समानता, समन्याय लगायत आधारभूत ढाँचाहरूले नेपाली लोकतन्त्रको सुदृढीकरणमा महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलिरहेका छन्।

संविधानले व्यवस्थापिकामा महिलालाई एकतिहाइ प्रतिनिधित्वको स्पष्ट अधिकार दिएको छ। तेस्रोलिङ्गी नागरिकहरूलाई समावेशिताका आधारमा राज्यका निकायमा पहुँच र पहिचान सहितको नागरिकताको प्रमाणपत्रको सुनिश्चितताले संविधानलाई थप जीवन्त बनाएको छ।

आवासको हक, रोजगारीको हक आर्थिक सक्षमतामा आधारित हक हुन्। स्वच्छ वातावरण लगायत हकको पूर्ण पालना पनि आर्थिक सबलतामा निर्भर हुन्छ। राज्य आर्थिक रूपले सक्षम नभएसम्म यी हकको पूर्ण पालनामा प्रश्न उठिरहन्छ।

महँगी बढ्नु, युवाहरू विदेशिनु लगायत समस्याहरू राज्यको राजनीतिक संयन्त्रको विफलताका कारण निम्तिएका हुन्। यसमा संविधान दोषी छैन। सरकारका कमजोरीलाई संविधानको कमजोरी भन्न मिल्दैन। संविधान पथप्रदर्शक हो, यसले डोर्‍याएको पथमा हिंडन सकिएन भने संविधानलाई दोष दिन मिल्दैन।

संविधानको परिपालना नभए देश आर्थिक र राजनीतिक रूपमा समृद्ध हुनै सक्दैन। यसकारण यस वर्ष संविधान दिवस मनाइरहँदा संविधानको पूर्ण पालना प्राथमिकतामा पर्नुपर्छ।

विधिको शासनका लागि मुलुकमा संवैधानिक सर्वोच्चता प्रथम शर्त हो। भारतीय संविधानका निर्माता डा. भीमराव अम्बेडकरका अनुसार संविधान जति उत्कृष्ट भए पनि फितलो कार्यान्वयनले त्यसलाई नराम्ररी प्रभावित पारिरहेको हुन्छ।

दार्शनिक रुसोले भने झैं संविधानलाई जनताको साझा इच्छाको प्रतिविम्बका रूपमा स्थापित गर्नुपर्ने वेला आइसकेको छ।

- लेखक संवैधानिक कानूनका अध्येता हुन्।

jhajivesh@gmail.com

बुधबार, असोज ३, २०८०  ०९:०० मा प्रकाशित

https://www.himalkhabar.com/news/138030?fbclid=IwAR2a9xIFk_WX5OjQHn3XTTamczoQb4gUUpVKVQ22QKxI84MbXEVhErpCq_o

Constitution Bolsters Democratic Fabrics

The Rising Nepal

 Wed, 20 September 2023

Share

Change Font Sizes:

A law is a resolution of the whole people for the whole people, touching a matter that concerns all, says Rousseau. Indisputably, constitution is the highest law of the land. Article 1 of the constitution secures the supremacy of the charter, declaring that any law inconsistent to it would be void to that extent. As it represents and respects the people collectively; the constitution of a country never has for its objects an individual man; or particular action. In the words of Rousseau, law represents the general will. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 represents the common will of the Nepalis. The constitutional arrangements are tailored in such a fashion that could suit all without any distinction to caste, creed or community. As a matter of fact, new constitution, which entered into force on September 20, 2015, neither leaves anyone stateless, nor does it discriminate anyone. 

In Part-2, the Constitution provides arrangement for the citizenship. Adhering to Jus Sanguinis principle, it has been provisioned that citizenship would be granted on the basis of bloodline. A person is eligible for citizenship by descent, if his father and mother both are citizens of Nepal. If a person is born to a Nepali mother citizen who is married to a foreigner and has not acquired citizenship from his/her father’s country, when proved, s/he will be conferred with naturalized citizenship. A foreign woman married to a Nepali is entitled to obtain naturalized citizenship. Moreover, there is a well-settled practice of awarding citizenship by descent to a person whose father is citizen by descent and mother is otherwise. 

Fundamental rights 

In Part-III, the Constitution embraces a long list of fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression, right to employment, right to housing, right to food, fair and speedy trial, right to clean and healthy environment, and among others. The right to obtain constitutional remedy at the instance of infringement of fundamental rights has been ensured under Article 46 which prescribes that petitions could be filed before the Supreme Court (Article 133) or High Courts (Article 144).   The Constitution lays down Directive Principles under Part-IV as guiding principles which are non-enforceable in nature. Therefore, if a directive is not obeyed by the State, its obedience or implementation cannot be secured through judicial proceedings. They are fundamental in governance of the country. Based on economic capability, its the duty of the province/state to apply these principles in making laws. 

Our constitution departs from the concept of dual citizenship which is prevalent in United States. The Constitution of United States (US) allows dual citizenship — the citizenship of US and the citizenship of state in which a person is domiciled. We are close to India but depart from American position. Unlike US, the constitution introduces well-ordered and well-regulated judicial machinery with the Supreme Court at the apex. It does not confer on a Province to enact a piece of constitution to govern or regulate their affairs. Hence, we have a single constitution like that of India’s but unlike that of US where each state has own constitution. 

In every country, there are certain administrative posts which might be of strategic or national importance from the point of view of maintaining the standard of administration. This respect, we are close to India.  The Constitution prescribes the Auditor General would be appointed by the President on the recommendation of Constitutional Council, which is headed by Prime Minister. The accounts of the government offices, including that of office of the President and Vice-President, Supreme Court, the Federal Parliament, and Provincial Assemblies is audited by the Auditor General.

The laws of centre would prevail over the concurrent power of federation and province, while the laws made under the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the center would prevail over the provincial enactments. Interestingly, Article 246 of Indian Constitution is couched in the similar language. The constitution further becomes unitary when it comes to learn that the provincial governments are not conferred with prosecutorial power. The provincial governments are not empowered to appoint a single staff or a judge at the High Courts or district courts. 

In yet another unitary feature, Article 232 provisions that the federal government may, in pursuant to the constitution and federal law, provide necessary support and directives to the Village Executive and Municipal Executive and they have a duty to abide by such directive. This way the centre has opportunity and authority to enforce its mandates at the grassroots level.  Despite of some unitary features, it, like that of India’s, acknowledges federal principles as well. So far the distribution of legislative power is concerned; the Constitution seeks to distribute the powers of the state into lists, viz., Federal List, Concurrent List, Provincial List (and Local List for local bodies). 

Democratic credentials

The constitution and the basic structures it envisaged have allowed the democratic credentials to thrive on the sovereign soil of Nepal. One of such basic structures has been the principle of federalism, which played a stellar role in the consolidation of Nepali democracy. The constitution has explicit mandate of one-third representation to women at legislative apparatus. Also, it’s the foremost fundamental document in Asia — and only the third in world along with South Africa and Ecuador — to expressly guarantee the rights of transgender people. 

As its living document, the derogatory issues or points of indifferences, if there is any, could be resolved by way of amendment and this constitution would also evolve like other constitutions of the world. From strengthening federalism to nurturing fundamental rights and inclusivity, the constitution aims to consolidate democratic fabrics. So, while celebrating the Constitution Day this year, we have to rejoice the constitutional provisions and take a pledge to live by the constitution. As law is the manifestation of the ‘general will,’ we should build a common consciousness to live by the constitution, the highest law of the land. 

(The author holds an LLM in Constitutional Law and currently working as a Section Officer at Rajbiraj High Court.) 

https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/32659?fbclid=IwAR1w3_4fvD32E__Ugb53c6XKxUVHztuzTpXcb_AJwCnYGHMuW0Px12UWLn8 

The Rising Nepal

 

On Constitution Day (2023), deliberations at Uttaranchal University and coverage in The Himachal Times

 

Implement the constitution in true sense

 

It would have been better had the CA members given due respect to the things which could be crucial in bringing Madhesis and Pahadis together

Jivesh Jha

Sept. 14, 2023, (The Annapurna Express) 

On 20 Sept 2015, Nepal adopted its first federal democratic republican Constitution promulgated by the Constituent Assembly, a historic step for a nation that had gone through a decade-long Maoist insurgency, royal massacre, Madhes movements and other  political deadlocks.  The seven years’ exercise finally produced a new Constitution. Nepal formally abolished its legacy of Hindu monarchy and emerged as a federal democratic republic. Over the years, the political instability was so heightened that the country saw 15 prime ministers since 2006. Even after the delivery of the 2015 Constitution, the country witnessed eight prime ministers. The drafting process (2008 to 2015) kicked off in 2008 with the formation of Constituent Assembly-I, the unicameral body of 601-member, after its election. In fact, the demand for a new Constitution was raised by Maoist rebels, who waged a decade-long civil war which ended with the 2006 comprehensive peace accord. The Constitution aimed to reinforce Nepal as a secular, democratic republic with a provision for safeguarding the religion, and federate the country into seven provinces.

Bag of progressive provisions  

While celebrating Constitution Day, it’s high time for us to rejoice in the progressive provisions. It stands as the first national  charter in South Asia to include an explicit mandate of one-third representation to women in legislative apparatus. The Constitution expressly guarantees the rights of transgender people. This paradigm shift has made the country bound to adopt affirmative action to ensure the proportional representation of oppressed groups, including that of transgender and disabled persons, in the state apparatuses. In yet another breakthrough, the charter institutes fair corpus of provisions for language as well. In order to flourish the languages given by mother, it's been provisioned that the languages given by mother shall be the national languages. The fundamental rights provisions are praiseworthy. Take the example of the right to privacy. Right to privacy is yet to be expressly mentioned in the Indian constitution; however, the same right has been enlisted under fundamental rights in Nepal. Still, the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the ‘right to life and personal liberty’ clause in India.

The provisions relating to fundamental rights have been embodied under Part-III (Article 16-48) of the Constitution. There are ample provisions which are progressive in nature. For instance, right to information, right to communication, right to justice, rights of victim of crime, right against torture, right to free legal aid, right to privacy, right to property, right to clean environment, right to language and culture, rights of women, rights of Dalits, rights of senior citizens, and  right to social security, among others, are the provisions which appear progressive in one way or the other.

Our progressive fundamental rights would become meaningless unless implemented in true and material sense. The state is failing to implement these rights in letter and spirit due to its poor economy and political instability. It’s the fault of the government, not the Constitution.

Constitutional supremacy

The Constitution of Nepal under Article 1 secures the supremacy of the constitution, while Article 133 and Article 146 confers power on the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue any form of writs and determinations to secure the fundamental rights of the people. Our Constitution confers a wide range of powers on the judicial department to judicially review the actions of executive and legislature.

The Supreme Court in the case of  Bed Krishna Shrestha v Ms Secretary, Department of Industry, Commerce, Food Civil Supplies (2010 BS) held that power and obligation of the Pradhan Nayalaya, under Section 30, was to prevent unlawful action in case it infringed on the fundamental rights of people. In Mrigendra Shamsher Rana v Inspector General of Police (2011 BS), Chief Justice Hari Prasad Pradhan for the first time in the judicial history of Nepal issued a directive order to the government to initiate immediate amendment in Raj Kaj Act. The 1990 constitution had considered the provision of the Judicial Review as one of the sacrosanct parts of the charter.  This way, the judicial department has the ultimate power to test the constitutionality of the action of the government under writ jurisdiction.

In the United States, in 1789, Judiciary Act conferred power on the US courts to review the governmental actions. In 1803, Chief Justice Marshal in the case of Marbury v Madison held that it is the judicial department to say what the law is. Article-III, Section-2 of the US constitution envisages that the Judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution, laws of US and up to certain specified controversies.  Likewise, Article VI, Section 2 provides that the US constitution is supreme and the laws inconsistent to it would be void.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom (UK), where the constitution is unwritten, and parliament is supreme, the courts have been conferred with power to interpret the laws. In Germany, the constitutional court is empowered to strike down not only ordinary laws but also constitutional amendments for being incompatible with the basic features of the constitution. Interestingly, the concept enjoys a similar currency in Nepal as well. 

Missed opportunities

The preamble acknowledged the glorification of various movements in the past such as the people’s movements and Maoist insurgency. But, the Constitution does not recognize the Madhes uprisings that led to the inclusion of federalism into the characteristics of the new Nepal. Had the makers of the Constitution recognized the Madhes movements, it could have further amplified the acceptance of the Constitution in the southern plains. It was a missed opportunity.

The charter provisions that the “operation, supervision, and coordination of Nepal police and provincial police shall be as provided by Federal law” [Article 268 (3)]. In doing so, the makers of the Constitution have offered a little say to the provincial legislatures in enacting policies for the police apparatus. 

Article 56 confers the power to declare village councils and municipalities to the federal government. It means the provinces do not have the power to restructure local bodies in the future. Article 203 does not give power to the provincial governments to levy tax without the consent of the central government. 

Moreover, the drafters ought not to have rejected calls to revert back to a Hindu state. It was the Hindu identity of Nepal that was crucial in bringing the Madhes and Hill people together. It would have been better had the CA members given due respect to the things which could be crucial in bringing Madhesis and Pahadis together.  Still, there would be political debates, there would be heated arguments also, at times there would be protests on the streets, yet amidst the noise and chaos, what the preamble of 2015 Constitution has taught ordinary population and those who claim to be representatives of people is that despite extraordinary diversity and differences along the lines of ethnicity, caste or religion, Nepal must remain one and march ahead with full faith on democratic credentials.

Way forward

There is no need to be disappointed with a handful of conflicting provisions, which may appear to be unitary in nature. They can be amended. From ensuring equality to providing positive discrimination to marginalized communities, from guaranteeing one-third representation of women in legislature to allowing transgender to seek citizenship certificates with recognition of sexual orientation and promoting egalitarianism, equity and good governance, our Constitution appears to be a progressive document. It’s high time to popularize these progressive measures. It’s time to implement them in letter and spirit.  The Constitution of Nepal—like other constitutions of the world—will also evolve with the passage of time. Nepal deserves constitutional democracy and rule of law. It’s time to live with the constitution. 

Available at: 

https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/45821/

Sept 15, 2023, on Page 4

The Annapurna Express (a national daily published from Kathmandu)

Usufruct for social solidarity

Jivesh Jha

(Sept. 7, 2023 The Annapurna Express)

The law regulates the relationship between community members. It’s often said that a law works as a tool to provide solutions for the problems of human beings.  The legal mandates can never be a combination of meaningless and purposeless words.

In fact, laws are tailored in pursuance of social reality.  The words, like help, support or social relations have been the hallmarks of Nepali society. The competent Parliament of Nepal has enacted a fair corpus of laws that recognize the prevailing culture of helping and extending support to fellow community members. Of many, there is a law on usufruct which has a robust base on supporting and helping others in good faith. 

The usufruct law aims to promote social relations. After all, we have seen a large chunk of people showing social solidarity with the people and the government at the time of their need. On a societal level, many rural folks stay at the flats of their known ones in urban areas for education and employment purposes. This way, our society has been caring and acting in a socially acceptable manner since time immemorial.

This respect, the law on usufruct envisaged under the National Civil Code, 2017 endeavors to protect social relationships and promote fraternity among community members. A usufruct is the combination of two property rights, “usus” (i.e., right to use something without damaging something) and “fructus” (i.e., right to enjoy the fruits of the property being used).  

Taking care of other’s property     

Section 352 of the Civil Code envisages that the owner of the property—be it movable or immovable—may allow others to use or enjoy his property free of cost. In fact, usufruct is an opportunity created by the owner of a property for his un/known ones to avail the benefits, use or enjoy his property for certain duration in good faith. However, it’s neither the transfer of title, nor is it the transfer of ownership.

It’s like a contract whereby the owner allows the possessor to use or enjoy his property for a stipulated period and return him the same in the same manner and in the same position without causing any damage to it. This respect, it’s a matter of trust excelled by the owner of the possessor.

The consent of other coparceners is necessary while giving any immovable property—like land or trees bearing fruits—in usufruct (Section 354). The usufructuary, the person who uses the property obtained by way of usufruct,  shall use or enjoy the property in good faith and adopt due diligence and care of the same (Section 355). The possessor of usufruct is entitled to file a lawsuit for the protection or enjoyment of the property (Section 355(4)).

Conditions

As the usufruct does not confer ultimate ownership, the possessor is not entitled to make alteration in the substance and form of the property without the consent of the owner. The usufructuary may lend the property on rent, lease or mortgage but with the consent of the owner. There shall be no requirement of written deed in case where the rent amount does not exceed 20,000/- per month (Section 358).

Sections 359 and 360 again remind that the possessor would have a duty to maintain and adopt reasonable care of the owner’s property. Section 361 casts a duty on the usufructuary to clear the bills, like electricity bills or water bills and other taxes. Section 362 provides for the duty of the usufructuary to inform the owner about any encroachment or damage caused to his property.

Limitations

Above all this, the usufruct cannot be everlasting. In case of natural person, the contract of usufruct would cease at the instance of the death of the usufructuary, i.e., the legal person holding the property by usufruct; or at the completion of 49 years of usufruct contract or whichever is earlier (Section 363).

The usufruct contract comes to an end at the dissolution of any institution; or at the completion of 29 years; or whichever is earlier—in the case of an artificial person.  If the usufructure is more than one, the usufruct would deem to be terminated on the date on which the last survivor usufructuary dies. The usufruct would also come to an end at the accomplishment of a purpose.. 

The owner could terminate or cancel the contract at the instance when it is found that the property in usufruct is not safe or wrongly used, abused or damaged (Section 364). The owner has the power to take his property back in possession at any given time. But, if the usufructuary does not wish to enjoy the property obtained under provision of usufruct, he may return such a property to the owner at any time by giving a notice of at least 45 days (Section 365).

Section 367 is the statute of limitation which prescribes that an aggrieved party (in usufruct) could file a lawsuit within six months from the date of commission of an alleged act.

Social support

The usufruct may be established over every kind of property, like movable and immovable property. In Nepal’s case, the general implementation of usufruct law could be seen in case of farmhouses, houses, farming lands, among others. The owner of a property could yield income from his property with the help of usufructuary.

Of late, it’s hard to trust someone. Our society is witnessing cases of criminal breach of trust, cheating, fraud and cases of illegal occupation of property on a daily basis. These incidents have led people to think twice before allowing someone to step into their property as a usufructuary. Nevertheless, our substantive and procedural laws are there to punish the outliers.

“The earth belongs in usufruct to the living,” said Thomas Jefferson. We can think of Jefferson’s earth as a place where a disadvantaged group or possessor (in general) is allowed to use and enjoy the fruits of the owner’s property without causing any damage to it. The mechanism of usufruct provides opportunity for a large chunk of people to reside at other’s place, cultivate other’s farmland, or yield income from other’s property or generate income and benefit for and from the owner of a property.

Way forward

As a matter of fact, it’s beneficial to the possessor as well as the owner for a number of reasons.

In usufruct, the owner’s property remains safely managed by usufruct and the latter finds it an opportunity to use and enjoy the property of others for a certain period. Secondly, the usufructuary could generate income for the owner by way of lease or other mechanisms but with the consent of the owner.  This way, our law endeavors to tighten the bond of social solidarity. It aims to bridge the gap between haves and have nots and attempts to promote fraternity. It’s high time to rejoice the social solidarity among the community members and to promote the message of usufruct, for our society deserves to support each other to survive and thrive in a bond of trust.  

https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/45717/

चर्को मूल्यवृद्धि र संवैधानिक ‘ग्यारेन्टी’मा प्रश्न

 खाद्यान्न लगायत दैनिक उपभोग्य वस्तुको चर्को मूल्यवृद्धिले संवैधानिक प्रावधानको पूर्ण पालनामा प्रश्न उब्जाएको छ।

जिवेश झा  (आइतबार, ३ भदौ, २०८०)

संविधानले मौलिक अधिकार, दिगो विकास र लोक कल्याणकारी राज्यको अवधारणालाई जीवन्त बनाउन अग्रगामी प्रावधानलाई आत्मसात् गरेको छ। तर, बेरोजगारी र चरम महँगीले यी संवैधानिक गहनालाई धूलिसात् पार्दै लगेको छ।

बढ्दो महँगीले जनजीवन, जीविका र समग्र हितमा प्रभाव पारेको छ। तपाईं-हामीले खरीद गर्ने प्रत्येक सामानको चर्को मूल्य तिर्नुपरिरहेको छ। मूल्यवृद्धि र बेरोजगारीको दोहोरो मारले जनजीवन कष्टकर हुँदै गएको छ।

सर्वसाधारणले महसूस गरेको आर्थिक मन्दीलाई कम गर्न सरकारले कल्याणकारी योजना पेश नगर्नु भनेको संवैधानिक ‘ग्यारेन्टी’ लाई अवज्ञा गर्नु हो। सरकारका सम्पूर्ण नीति-नियमहरू संविधानको भाग ३ मा उल्लिखित मौलिक हक र भाग ४ मा उल्लेख भएको राज्यको निर्देशक सिद्धान्तमा आधारित हुनुपर्नेमा त्यसो हुन नसक्नु दर्भाग्यपुर्ण छ।  

अहिले बढ्दो महँगीले सबैलाई निराश बनाएको छ। खाद्यान्न सामग्रीको मूल्यमा भएको अस्वाभाविक वृद्धिलाई नै हेरौं।

टमाटरको औसत खुद्रा बिक्री मूल्य यति महँगो छ कि उपभोक्ताले त्यसको मूल्य पेट्रोलको मूल्यसँग तुलना गरिरहेका छन्। पेट्रोल टमाटरभन्दा सस्तो छ। पेट्रोल प्रतिलिटर १७० रुपैयाँमा सहजै पाउन सकिन्छ भने त्यही मूल्यमा एक किलो टमाटर आउँदैन।

टमाटरको खुद्रा मूल्य अहिले प्रतिकिलो २०० सय हाराहारी छ। हरियो सागपातको मूल्य पनि दिनहुँ आकाशिंदै गएको छ। सामान्य आय भएका नागरिकलाई दुई छाक खान गाह्रो भएको छ।

यस्तो असहज परिस्थिति न्यूनीकरणका लागि संघ, प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकारले केकस्ता योजना सार्वजिनक गरे त? केही गरेको छैन।  

संवैधानिक ‘ग्यारेन्टी’

संविधानले प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई खाद्य सम्बन्धी हकको ‘ग्यारेन्टी’ गरेको छ। यो व्यवस्था मौलिक हकका रूपमा धारा ३६ ले प्रत्याभूत गरेको पाइन्छ। धारा ३३ ले प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई रोजगारीको हक प्रदान गरेको छ।

त्यस्तै, उपभोक्तालाई गुणस्तरीय वस्तु तथा सेवाको ग्यारेन्टी धारा ४४ ले गरेको छ। मर्यादित जीवनयापनका लागि प्रत्येक व्यक्तिलाई धारा १६ ले सम्मानपूर्वक बाँच्न पाउने हक प्रदान गरेको छ।

संविधानका यी मौलिक हक न सरकारले जनतालाई उपहारको रूपमा दिने वस्तु हुन् न त सरकारको स्वेच्छाको अधीनमा रहने व्यवस्था हुन्। मौलिक हक प्राकृतिक अधिकार हुन्, जुन प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई मानव भएकै कारणले प्राप्त हुनुपर्छ।

आकाशिएको महँगीले मौलिक हकमा आघात पुर्‍याएको छ। एकातिर संविधानले प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई खाद्य सम्बन्धी हक प्रत्याभूत गर्नु, रोजगारीको हकको ग्यारेन्टी गर्नु र अर्कातर्फ अस्वाभाविक महँगीले जनजीवन कष्टकर हुँदै आम नागरिकले खाद्यान्न खरीद गर्न पनि नसक्ने अवस्था आउनुले संविधानका यी व्यवस्था गहनाका रूपमा सजिएर बस्नकै लागि राखिएको र सरकार यसप्रति गम्भीर नरहेको प्रस्ट हुन्छ।

युवा रोजगारीका लागि दिनहुँ विदेशिंदै छन्। खाडी मुलुकमा कामदार भिसामा गइरहेका छन्। यसले संविधानमा ग्यारेन्टी गरिएको रोजगारको हकलाई गिज्याइरहेको छ।

मुद्रास्फीतिले गरीबी बढाउनुका साथै जनजीवनमा लामो समयसम्म प्रत्यक्ष असर पार्छ। उदाहरणका लागि चरम महँगीका कारण सन्तुलित आहारमा समाजको एक वर्गको पहुँच नपुग्दा सन्ततिले विभिन्न किसिमका रोगबाट ग्रसित हुनुपर्ने अवस्था आउँछ। यससँगै आय र व्ययबीचको समीकरण मिलाउन नसक्दा ऋणको पासोमा परेर गरीबीतिर धकेलिन्छन्।

अर्कातर्फ, केही आफ्ना बालबालिकालाई राम्रोसँग शिक्षा दिन नसक्ने अवस्थामा पुगेका छन्। शिक्षाको अधिकारलाई संविधानको धारा ३१ ले मौलिक अधिकारका रूपमा स्थापित गरेको छ। यो हक पनि कुण्ठित हुँदै छ।

मूल्यवृद्धिको यो गतिले क्रयशक्ति घटाएको छ। यी परिस्थितिले संवैधानिक ‘ग्यारेन्टी’ प्राप्त मौलिक हकलाई निर्मम तरीकाले आघात पुर्‍याइरहेको छ। संविधानले ग्यारेन्टी गरेका मौलिक अधिकार यसरी नै दयनीय अवस्थामा पुग्दै जाँदा बिस्तारै जनमानसले यी कानूनी प्रावधानमाथि विश्वास गर्न छोड्नेछन्।

नागरिकका लागि यी आधारभूत अधिकार प्राकृतिक अधिकार हुन्। प्रकृतिले दिएको अधिकार सरकारले दोहन गर्न वा खोस्न मिल्दैन।

अबको बाटो

जनताले आफ्नो हकका लागि आवाज उठाउनुपर्ने वेला आएको छ। आफ्ना मौलिक हकबारे अनभिज्ञ रहन मिल्दैन। जवाफदेही र इमानदारीको संस्कृति मुलुकमा तबसम्म फस्टाउँदैन, जबसम्म नागरिक आफैं सतर्क हुँदैनन्।  

धारा ४६ ले प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई मौलिक अधिकारको प्राप्तिका लागि धारा १३३ अन्तर्गत सर्वोच्च अदालतमा निवेदन गर्न र धारा १४४ अन्तर्गत उच्च अदालतमा निवेदन गर्नका लागि मार्गप्रशस्त गरेको छ। धारा ४८ ले प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई संविधान र प्रचलित कानूनको पालना गर्न मौलिक कर्तव्य प्रदान गर्छ। के हामी यी प्रावधानको हेक्का राख्छौं?

सरकार महँगी रोक्न र लोककल्याणकारी योजना लागू गर्न असफल भइरहेको छ। दलका नेताहरू सत्तालिप्सामा सीमित छन्। उनीहरू संविधान कार्यान्वयनभन्दा पनि सत्ताको रसास्वादनतर्फ केन्द्रित छन्। यस्तो लापरवाहीले लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यमान्यतामा ठेस पुग्नेछ।

जनताको मौलिक अधिकारको रक्षा गर्न खाद्यान्न वस्तुमा बढेको मूल्य लामो समयसम्म रहिरहनु हुँदैन। उचित बजार व्यवस्थापनका लागि गुणस्तर तथा नापतौल विभाग लगायत प्रशासनिक निकायको अनुगमन हुनैपर्छ। कालाबजारीका लागि खाद्य वस्तुको अस्वाभाविक र अनुचित भण्डारणमा रोक लगाउनुपर्छ।

महँगी बढ्दै गएको छ। अर्थव्यवस्था कमजोर हुँदै गएको छ। यससँगै गरीबी दिनप्रतिदिन बढ्दै छ। जसले गर्दा उपभोक्ताको मौलिक अधिकारलाई कुण्ठित पारिरहेको छ। फलस्वरूप, संविधान कमजोर बन्दै गएको छ।

बेलायती राजनीतिज्ञ मार्गरेट थ्याचरले भनेकी थिइन्, ‘संविधान केवल कागजमा मात्र नभई हृदयमा लेख्नुपर्छ।’ यदि वास्तवमै लोकतन्त्रमा बाँच्न र सास फेर्न चाहन्छौं भने संविधानको पूर्ण पालना हुनैपर्छ।

संविधान कार्यान्वयन गर्ने वाचा गर्नैपर्छ। देशमा कानूनको शासन अपरिहार्य छ। जर्ज वाशिङ्टनले भने झैं ‘संविधान त्यस्तो मार्गनिर्देशन हो, जुन मैले कहिल्यै त्याग्नेछैन’ भनेर राज्य सञ्‍चालकसँगै प्रत्येक नेपालीले वाचा गर्ने वेला आएको छ।

आइतबार, ३ भदौ, २०८०, हिमाल खवर पत्रिका मा प्रकाशित

https://www.himalkhabar.com/news/137603

Curb inflation, uphold the Charter

The governments’ failure to guarantee fundamental rights by curbing inflation and by providing jobs can make way for anarchy

Jivesh Jha

Aug. 15, 2023 (The Annapurna Express) 

Although the Constitution of Nepal stands for fundamental rights, sustainable development and welfare policies, a sweeping wave of unemployment and inflation have pushed the country to a breaking point.

A soaring inflation has caused a brutal impact on the lives, livelihoods and overall well-being of the people. Whatever you purchase these days has inflation attached to it. To mitigate the economic distress resulting from a double impact of inflation and unemployment, the government could have introduced welfare schemes as the constitution has envisaged that all public policies are supposed to be in sync with fundamental rights and directive principles.

Soaring market prices have everyone upset. Tomatoes have become so costly that people have begun comparing them with petrol. In fact, it is a wrong comparison. While petrol costs Rs 175/liter these days, tomatoes cost around Rs 200/kg. In such a situation, governments—central, provincial and local—should have provided some relief to the people.

Constitutional quagmires

Our constitution, which entered into force on 20 Sept 2015, ‘guarantees’ so many rights. It guarantees the right to food (Article 36); right to employment (Article 33); the rights of consumers to have quality goods and services (Article 44), so on and so forth. Over and above all else, it guarantees the right to live a dignified life (Article 16). I wonder why we are not talking about these foundation stones on which the constitution stands.

Inflation has a direct bearing on poverty. The other side of this picture is that some of the adverse effects may have a lasting impact. For instance, a section of the population may suffer from diseases for want of a balanced diet owing to the lack of income or poverty.

On the other hand, people may not be able to educate their kids properly regardless of the right to education enshrined in Article 31 of the constitution as one of the fundamental rights.

All this has the people and their fundamental rights on the receiving end. In today’s federal democratic republic, the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution sound so alien. Gradually, this situation may give rise to public distrust toward constitutional guarantees and government-made promises, thereby fomenting anarchy.

Preamble of the charter

The preamble of the charter obliges the state to end “all forms of discrimination and oppression created by the feudal, autocratic, centralized, and unitary system” for the creation of an “egalitarian society on the basis of the principle of proportional inclusion.” The preamble affirms the sovereignty of “We the people,” committed to fulfilling the “aspirations for perpetual peace, good governance, development and prosperity through the medium of democratic republican system of governance” and thus “hereby promulgate this Constitution through the Constituent Assembly.” The concluding part seeks to unite the citizens in an enduring sense of duty to uphold constitutional norms, not just the ‘loyalty of lip service’.

The Parliamentarians and the provincial leaders must ask themselves whether, as responsible public servants, they have stood up to the constitutional promise of maintaining the concept called “rule of law” and “egalitarianism”.

The governments’ failure to guarantee the fundamental rights (by curbing inflation and by providing jobs) can end up disrobing egalitarianism, the rule of law and the overall objectives of the preamble. 

Way forward

The people should raise their concerns strongly against unscrupulous exploitation of their rights and value their hard-earned money. A culture of accountability and honesty will not flourish in the country unless the consumers themselves become more vigilant.

Article 46 of the constitution empowers every citizen to knock the doors of the Supreme Court (Article 133) or High Courts (Article 144) for the realization of fundamental rights. Article 48 casts a fundamental duty on every citizen to abide by the constitution and the prevailing laws. 

Do we care about these provisions?

The governments’ failure to curb inflation or their failure to introduce welfare schemes amidst rising inflation reflects poorly on our political leaders. For them, nothing else matters save absolute power, it appears. This has a profound negative bearing on the entire democratic system of governance.

To protect fundamental rights, the government should rein in food inflation. There should be frequent administrative checks on retail prices, hoarding of food commodities and unabated smuggling of food items to the neighborhood.

Escalating food prices are especially worrisome as they undermine the right to food.  The mismanagement of the economy and lawlessness should not be the hallmarks of our federal democracy.

Margaret Thatcher, a British politician, had rightly said, “The Constitution has to be written on hearts, not just paper.” If we really want to live and breathe in a democracy, our constitution must be acknowledged in letter and spirit.   

It’s high time to realize that the country cannot survive with uncontrolled inflation and frequent disruption of constitutional mandates, especially given that Nepal is an ancient country of sustainable development-friendly people.

Take a pledge to implement the constitution, for the country deserves the rule of law. As George Washington has said, “The constitution is the guide which I will never abandon,” the time has come for every Nepali, including leaders and Ministers, to take the same solemn pledge.

https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/45406/