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/ 

नेपाल सरकार कानून, नीति, नियम तर्जुमा गर्न अब्बल देखिए पनि तिनको कार्यान्वयन गराउन भने असफल भएको देखिन्छ।

जिवेश झा

नेपालको संविधानले वातावरण संरक्षण र प्रवर्द्धन सम्बन्धी विशिष्ट मौलिक हकहरूको प्रत्याभूति गरेको छ। संवैधानिक व्यवस्थाले राज्यसंयन्त्र र व्यक्तिलाई समेत वातावरणको संरक्षण र संवर्द्धनमा भूमिका खेल्न प्रेरित गरेको भए पनि वेलाबखत काठमाडौं विश्वका प्रदूषित शहरमध्ये अब्बल स्थानमा आउँछ। यो भनेको संविधान र प्रचलित कानूनको उचित कार्यान्वयन नहुनु हो।

५ जूनमा विश्व वातावरण दिवस मनाइरहँदा वातावरण प्रदूषण बढेर काठमाडौं अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय स्तरमै कुख्यात हुनुका कारणबारे गम्भीर चिन्तन गर्नुपर्ने देखिन्छ।

संवैधानिक व्यवस्था

नेपालको संविधानको धारा ३० मा ‘प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई स्वच्छ र सफा वातावरणमा बस्ने पाउने हक हुनेछ’ भन्ने उल्लेख छ। धारा ३५ (४) मा ‘प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई स्वच्छ खानेपानी तथा सरसफाइमा पहुँचको हक हुनेछ’ भन्ने उल्लेख छ।

खाद्य सम्प्रभुताको हक धारा ३६ ले सिर्जना गरेको छ भने कृषि वा वातावरण संरक्षणमा सुधार ल्याउन भूमिसुधार सम्बन्धी कानून तर्जुमा गर्ने राज्यको अधिकारलाई धारा २५ ले सुनिश्चित गरेको देखिन्छ। गुणस्तरीय खाद्य पदार्थ र सेवाहरूमा उपभोक्ताको हकलाई धारा ४४ ले स्थापित गरेको छ।

उच्च तथा सर्वोच्च अदालतलाई वातावरणको संरक्षण र संवर्द्धनका लागि कुनै निर्देशन वा आदेश गर्न अधिकार दिइएको छ। वातावरण संरक्षण सम्बन्धी हकको उल्लंघन भएमा उचित कानूनी उपचारका लागि अदालत पुग्ने मार्ग पनि प्रशस्त गरेको पाइन्छ।

वातावरण सम्बन्धी यस्ता प्रावधानले अन्ततः नेपालको हरित गणतन्त्र (ग्रीन डेमेक्रेसी)लाई टेवा पुर्‍याउँछ।

‘पब्लिक ट्रस्ट डक्ट्रिन’ अनुसार प्राकृतिक सम्पदाको प्रभावकारी व्यवस्थापन गर्ने जिम्मेवारी राज्यको हुन्छ र प्राकृतिक सम्पदाको अनुचित प्रयोगबाट वातावरणमा पर्ने जोखिम न्यूनीकरण गर्न निरोधात्मक र पूर्व सावधानीको उपाय अपनाउन पनि राज्यको विशेष जिम्मेवारी हुन्छ।

‘प्यारेन्स प्याट्रिया’ सिद्धान्तले पनि वातावरण संरक्षण गर्ने दायित्व राज्यसत्ताको हुने भनेको छ। र, नेपालको संवैधानिक व्यवस्थाले पनि यी स्थापित सिद्धान्त आत्मसात् गरेको पाइन्छ।

कानूनी प्रावधान

राज्यका संयन्त्रहरूले बाध्यकारी संवैधानिक प्रावधान र अदालतको आदेश अवज्ञा गरेकै कारण आज नेपालको वातावरण प्रदूषित भइरहेको छ।

वातावरण संरक्षण ऐन, २०७६ ले वातावरण अध्ययन प्रतिवेदन विना विकास निर्माणसँग सम्बन्धित प्रस्ताव ‘पास’ हुने परिकल्पना गरेको छैन। उक्त ऐनको दफा ३ अनुसार प्रस्तावकले विकास निर्माण सम्बन्धमा वातावरणीय अध्ययन प्रतिवेदन सरकार समक्ष पेश गर्नुपर्ने परिकल्पना गरेको छ।

राष्ट्रिय प्राथमिकता प्राप्त विकास आयोजना, राष्ट्रिय गौरवका योजना, एकभन्दा बढी प्रदेशमा निर्माण कार्य गर्नुपर्ने आयोजना लगायत विषयसँग सम्बन्धित विकास निर्माणको हकमा वातावरण अध्ययन प्रतिवेदन वातावरण मन्त्रालयमा पेश गर्नुपर्ने भनिएको छ।

यस्तै, प्रदेश सरकारको अधिकार क्षेत्रभित्र पर्ने विषयसँग सम्बन्धित विकास निर्माण सम्बन्धी कार्य वा आयोजना सम्बन्धी प्रस्तावको हकमा सम्बन्धित प्रदेश कानूनले तोके बमोजिमको निकाय समक्ष प्रतिवेदन पेश गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था छ।

स्थानीय निकायको अधिकार क्षेत्रभित्र पर्ने विकास निर्माण सम्बन्धी कार्य वा आयोजना सम्बन्धी प्रस्तावको हकमा पनि संक्षिप्त वातावरणीय प्रतिवेदन वा प्रारम्भिक वातावरणीय परीक्षण प्रतिवेदन भए सम्बन्धित स्थानीय निकायमा पेश गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था छ।

दफा १० ले वातावरणीय प्रतिकूल प्रभाव न्यूनीकरणका लागि आयोजना निर्माणका क्रममा, आयोजना सम्पन्न भएपछि वा आयोजना कार्यान्वयनका क्रममा केकस्ता उपाय अवलम्बन गरिने हो भन्ने सम्बन्धमा समेत प्रस्तावकले वातावरणीय व्यवस्थापन योजनामा उल्लेख गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था गरेको छ।

वातावरणीय अध्ययन प्रतिवेदन स्वीकृत नगराई विकास निर्माण वा आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गराएको पाइएमा सो निर्माण कार्यमा सरकारले रोक लगाउन सक्ने व्यवस्था दफा १३ ले गरेको छ।

दफा १५ ले प्रदूषण नियन्त्रणका लागि सवारीसाधन, होटल लगायत अन्य स्थानका लागि मापदण्ड नेपाल सरकारले निर्धारण गर्न सक्ने प्रावधान तोकेको छ। दफा १८ ले वातावरण संरक्षण तथा प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण सम्बन्धी जाँच वा परीक्षण गर्न नेपाल सरकार वा प्रदेश सरकारलाई अधिकार प्रदान गरेको छ।

वातावरणीय अध्ययन प्रतिवेदनको पालना भए/नभएको सम्बन्धमा अनुगमन तथा निरीक्षण गर्ने जिम्मेवारी वातावरण निरीक्षकलाई हुने परिकल्पना दफा २१ ले गरेको छ। दफा ३५ ले वातावरणीय प्रभाव मूल्याङ्कन प्रतिवेदन स्वीकृत नगराई वा स्वीकृत प्रतिवेदन विपरीत हुने गरी कुनै प्रस्ताव कार्यान्वयन गरेमा ५० लाखसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था गरेको छ। संक्षिप्त वातावरणीय अध्ययन प्रतिवेदन स्वीकृत नगराई वा स्वीकृत प्रतिवेदन विपरीत कार्य भएको पाइएमा पाँच लाख रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ।

यस्तै, प्रारम्भिक वातावरणीय प्रतिवेदन स्वीकृत नगराएमा वा सो विपरीत हुने किसिमले विकास निर्माण कार्य अगाडि बढाइएमा १० लाख रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ।

स्थानीय सरकार सञ्चालन ऐन, २०७४ को दफा ११ ले प्रत्येक स्थानीय तहलाई सरसफाइ सम्बन्धी मापदण्डको कार्यान्वयन र सो सम्बन्धमा नीतिनियम बनाउन र कार्यान्वयन गर्न/गराउन अधिकार प्रदान गरेको छ। आधारभूत स्वास्थ्य, सरसफाइ, स्वच्छ खानेपानी, सरसफाइ सचेतनाको अभिवृद्धि लगायत फोहरमैला सङ्कलन, पुनरुपयोग, प्रशोधन, विसर्जन र सोको सेवा शुल्क निर्धारण र नियमनका लागि पनि स्थानीय निकायलाई नै जिम्मेवारी प्रदान गरेको छ।

यही ऐनले जैविक विविधताको संरक्षण, वातावरण संरक्षण र स्थानीय स्तरमा वातावरणीय जोखिम न्यूनीकरणका लागि समेत आवश्यक कदम चाल्न स्थानीय निकायकाई नै जिम्मेवारी तोकेको छ।

सरसर्ती हेर्दा वातावरण सम्बन्धी नेपालको कानून प्रगतिशील नै देखिन्छ।

न्यायिक दृष्टिकोण

सर्वोच्च अदालतले विभिन्न समयमा विभिन्न मुद्दामा वातावरण संरक्षणका लागि सरकारलाई निर्देशन दिंदै आएको पाइन्छ। उदाहरणका लागि ‘अमरनाथ झा विरुद्ध नेपाल सरकार समेत’ (२०७३, निर्णय नं. १०७४३) लाई लिन सकिन्छ।

उक्त मुद्दामा आनन्दमोहन भट्टराई र सुष्मलता माथेमाको संयुक्त इजलासले विधिको शासन भएको मुलुकमा जनताले सुरक्षित वातावरणमा सम्मानपूर्वक बाँच्न पाउनुपर्ने नैसर्गिक र अहस्तान्तरणीय अधिकार हुने भनी व्याख्या गरेको छ।

‘वातावरण, जलवायु परिवर्तन र मानव अधिकार सम्बन्धी कानूनको बढ्दो दायरा र चासोलाई अदालतले अवश्य पनि गम्भीरतापूर्वक हेर्छ र हेरिनुपर्छ। स्वस्थ र सुरक्षित वातावरणमा बस्न पाउने जनताको हकको हर तरहबाट सम्मान गरिनुपर्छ’ भन्ने समेत बेहोरा उल्लेख गरी प्रस्तुत मुद्दामा नजीर प्रतिपादन भएको देखिन्छ।

‘अधिवक्ता नारायणप्रसाद देवकोटा विरुद्ध नेपाल सरकार समेत’ (२०६६, निर्णय नं. ८५२१)मा सर्वोच्च अदालतले योजनाकार एवं सरकारले योजना बनाउँदा आर्थिक विकास र औद्योगिक विकास तथा वातावरण संरक्षणलाई ‘ब्यालेन्स’ गर्न सक्नुपर्छ, आजको २१औं शताब्दीको विश्व स्वच्छ वातावरणको आवश्यकता र महत्त्वबारे सचेत हुनुपर्छ र वातावरण विनाश गरेर आर्थिक विकास स्वीकार्य हुन सक्दैन भन्ने नजीर स्थापना गरेको छ।

सर्वोच्च अदालतले उक्त मुद्दामा पब्लिक ट्रस्ट डक्ट्रिन अन्तर्गत नेपालको प्राकृतिक स्रोतमा नेपाल सरकार ‘ट्रस्टी’ सम्म मात्र हुने र नेपालको प्राकृतिक स्रोतको कुनै कानूनी आधार बेगर छाडा रूपले केवल नाम मात्रको राजस्व बुझाएको भरमा मात्र वातावरणमा प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पार्ने गरी कार्य गर्न दिन नहुने भनी सरकारका नाममा आदेश गरेको पाइन्छ।

उक्त मुद्दामा ‘वातावरण प्रदूषण वास्तवमा राज्यको खराब सामाजिक आर्थिक नीतिको कारण नै हुने हो। यदि यस पुनीत कार्यमा कार्यपालिकाले आफ्नो संवैधानिक कर्तव्य पालना गर्न ढिलाइ गर्छ वा पछि पर्छ भने नागरिकको मौलिक हकको अभिभावक अदालत चूप लागेर बस्नु हुँदैन। वातावरण जोगाउन सर्वोच्च अदालतले पाएको संवैधानिक आदेश पूरा र पालना गर्नुपर्ने’ सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादन गरेको देखिन्छ।

यसरी हेर्दा सर्वोच्च अदालतले मातहतका अदालतलाई वातावरणीय न्यायको प्रत्याभूति जनतालाई दिलाउन आवश्यक पहल गर्न/गराउनका लागि दिशानिर्देश गरेको देखिन्छ। नेपालको संवैधानिक व्यवस्था, प्रचलित कानून र अदालतका आदेशलाई समष्टिगत रूपमा हेर्दा वातावरण संरक्षणका लागि राज्यको नीतिनियम बलियो भए पनि कार्यान्वयन भने फितलो भएकोमा दुई मत छैन।

नेपाल गम्भीर हुनैपर्छ

नेपाल सरकार कानून, नीति, नियम तर्जुमा गर्न अब्बल देखिए पनि तिनको कार्यान्वयन गराउन भने असफल भएको देखिन्छ। संविधानको धारा ३० ले प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई स्वच्छ वातावरणको हक हुने भने पनि जनता प्रदूषित वातावरणमा सास फेर्न बाध्य छन्। यस्तो परिस्थिति उत्पन्न हुनु नै गलत हो। संविधान र प्रचलित कानूनको घोर उल्लंघन हो।

‘प्लास्टिकजन्य प्रदूषण निर्मूल पारौं, वातावरणमैत्री विकल्पको उपयोग गरौं’ भन्ने यस वर्षको विश्व वातावरण दिवसको नारातर्फ हामी कति गम्भीर छौं? सन् २०२३ मा प्लास्टिक प्रदूषण नियन्त्रणमा गम्भीर भई वातावरणीय कानूनको पूर्ण पालना गर्दै नेपालको वातावरण स्वच्छ बनाई सुन्दर र सफा मुलुक निर्माण गर्नुपर्छ। अन्यथा विश्व वातावरण दिवस मनाउनुको कुनै अर्थ छैन।

(लेखक संवैधानिक कानूनका अध्येता हुन्। हाल धनुषा जिल्ला अदालतमा शाखा अधिकृत पदमा कार्यरत छन्।)

सोमबार, २२ जेठ, २०८०, ०९:१४:०० मा प्रकाशित
https://www.himalkhabar.com/news/136196

Environmental protection is not only a constitutional goal but also a cultural heritage of Nepal

Our legal as well as cultural practices endeavor to regulate the conduct of mankind to preserve nature. We need to realize that all our sacred texts, laws, judgments, conventions and cultural practices show the proximity of mankind with nature.

Jivesh Jha - 5 June, 2023

@NepalLiveToday

• Read Time 5 min.

---

Einstein has rightly said, “The environment is everything that isn’t me.” Environment is a polycentric and multifaceted problem affecting human life. We, the human beings, are nature’s best promise. But, we have turned into nature’s worst enemy by adopting all unsustainable development practices.

Undoubtedly, progress and pollution go together. There can be no end to progress in terms of industrialization, commercialization and globalization, and consequently, no escape from pollution. Still, we cannot turn a deaf ear to the environmental protection measures, as it’s our responsibility to ensure that our development practices meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The problem of environmental pollution is not a noble concept. It is as old as the emergence of people on the planet. Atharva Veda says that a pollution-free clean environment keeps all people, birds and animals living happily. In Veda, air, water, earth, sky, sun and trees are considered as deities.

In Rigveda, it’s been said that fresh air works as the panacea of all diseases. It directs one not to do any act that lessens or degrades the quality of oxygen. These concepts are recognized by laws, conventions and science of today. Take an example of the Rio Declaration of 1992. Principles 4 and 25 of Rio Declaration say that peace, development and environment are interdependent and indivisible.

Environment protection: A religious affair 

Environmental pollution was controlled rigidly in ancient times. It was not only an affair limited to an individual but the society as a whole accepted its duty to protect the environment, held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of TN Godaverman Thrimulpad v Union of India (2002).

In Amarnath Jha v Government of Nepal and Others, the Supreme Court of Nepal held that every person shall have an inherent right to live in a pollution-free environment to lead a dignified life [2073BS, Decision Number 10743].

Kautilya’s Arthashastra said it was the Dharma of each individual in society to protect nature. Similarly, the Yajna or sacrificial fire is apparently done to worship one or other deity and it ultimately purifies the air. The Samaveda highlights the importance of the Yajna as it helps in keeping away the mosquitoes and other insects. In Padma Purana and Karma Purana, it is mentioned that the trees, like Peepal, Bel, Neem etc are the abode of the God and they are not to be cut.

In Buddhism, the principle of Simplicity preaches for sustainability and the Principle of Ahimsa (Non-violence) preaches for the love for flora and fauna. King Ashoka wanted the non-violence to be the cultural heritage of the people. The Holy Koran declares that everything is created from water. Allah is considered to be the owner of the land and mankind is the trustee, whereas other living creatures are considered to be the beneficiaries.   

Nepal is the land of rites and rituals. The belief and cultural practices followed here show a deep concern for the protection and preservation of the environment.   

Socio-cultural legacy

Nepal is a multi-religious country where people belonging to every sect and faith live with co-existence. Our cultural legacy shows that we have never been cruel towards the environment. In fact, environmental protection is the cultural heritage of Nepal.

Every religious, cultural work we make, symbolizes environmental protection. See, Chhath festival. It’s the festival demanding cleanliness of waters. The devotees offer prayers to the Sun god by standing in the waters.

In Baisakh, the first month of the year in Nepal’s Bikram Sambat calendar, people in Terai-Madhesh celebrate Jur Shital festival which also promotes protection of trees and soil. The festival begins with elders sprinkling cool water on the heads of their relatives. The family members spread water on the plants and trees. In addition to this, there is a culture of playing the traditional game Kado-Mati (mud-soil) which is similar to mud bath. These cultural practices symbolize conservation of soil, trees, and water.

Our holy texts, laws and court judgments too show that the country has been serious towards environmentalism. We should develop a conscious approach and strike a balance between environmental protection and development, held by the Supreme Court of Nepal in the landmark case of Advocate Narayan Prasad Devkota v Government of Nepal and Others (2066 BS, Decision Number 8521). The apex court in this case held that bad socio-economic policy of the country is to be blamed for environmental degradation.

Constitutional goals

The Constitution of Nepal guarantees the right to clean environment as a fundamental right [Article 30].  The constitution declares various rights associated with the protection of the environment. Specific provisions associated with the environment are; the right to live in a clean environment, right to clean water and hygiene; right to food sovereignty; the right of state to carry out land reforms on agriculture and environment; and right of consumers to have quality foodstuffs and services.

The Constitution obliges the state to control and prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. The Supreme Court and High Courts (under Article 133 and 144, respectively) can issue required direction, order or writs for this purpose.

The Constitution confers power to the Centre, provinces as well as local governments to adopt and enact policies for protecting the natural environment. The Directive Principles provided in part-IV of the constitution, calls upon the local/ provincial governments to adopt policies for the protection and promotion of the environment [Article 51].

The Environment Protection Act, 2019 has been enacted by the government to implement Article 30 of the Constitution. The Act aims to protect and improve the environment and to mitigate the pollution; to enforce the right to clean environment; to grant compensation to victims of environmental pollution; and to implement EIA, Environmental Study and Environment Examination reports.   The Act has set heavy fines for non-compliance of law and government policies. Section 35 of the Act envisages that there could be a fine of up to five million at the instance of non-compliance of EIA by a proponent. Similarly, defiance of Initial Environmental Examination would lead to a fine of up to one million.

Way forward

On June 5, World Environment Day (WED), with the theme of “Beat Plastic Pollution,” we should evaluate if we have succeeded—or even tried—to acknowledge our cultural heritages, messages of the holy texts and green laws that were passed to preserve and advance the environment.

As a rule of state, environmental pollution is a business of shame in the environment. Environmental pollution also symbolizes that our mechanisms are not operating as per the mandate of law. Eventually, pollution rapes rule of law. Kathmandu’s deteriorating air quality and Nepal’s failure to upkeep sustainable development practices would certainly question our capability to deal with environmental menaces.   

This year’s event, which is being hosted by Cote d’lvoire in collaboration with the Netherlands, comes with the added duty of leading a worldwide movement against plastic waste.

Our legal as well as cultural practices endeavor to regulate the conduct of mankind in such a manner which is conducive to nature and not adverse to nature.  It’s high time for us to realize that all our sacred texts, laws, judgments, conventions and cultural practices show the proximity of mankind with nature. It’s time to implement our green laws, to acknowledge the messages of our cultural practices and to revive our heritage of environmental protection.  

#WorldEnvironmentDay

https://www.nepallivetoday.com/2023/06/05/environmental-protection-is-not-only-a-constitutional-goal-but-also-a-cultural-heritage-of-nepal/

Act now to strengthen green democracy

Jivesh Jha

2023/05/265 mins read

Those green laws are not mere cosmetic arrangements but like lampposts showing vivid paths

The Environment Protection Act, 2019 is a comprehensive piece of legislation, enacted primarily to give effect to Article 30 of the Constitution that guarantees the citizens’ right to fresh air and clean environment.

Introduced to consolidate environment laws, this Act assures victims of pollution a reasonable amount of compensation from the polluter. The main legislative intentions are to ensure the right to a clean and green environment, maintain balance between environment and development, and protect communities from adverse environmental impacts and climate change. While celebrating World Environment Day (WED) on June 5 with the theme of “Beat Plastic Pollution,” we need to analyze whether we have succeeded or even tried enforcing the green laws meant for protecting the environment. This year’s WED has put on Cote d’ivoire, the host of the event in partnership with the Netherlands,  one more responsibility: To lead a global drive against plastic pollution. In 2018, India hosted the WED with the theme of “Beat Plastic Pollution.” It’s high time for India to realize that their fight against plastic pollution was not robust and their failure made the United Nations Environment Program carry the same slogan in 2023 as well.

The 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment laid the foundation for the Environment Day celebration the world over, and has been held yearly on June 5 since 1973. The first WED was held in the USA with the theme of “Only one Earth” in 1974. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration, adopted at the end of WED events held at Stockholm from June 5 to 16 with the participation of 114 states, set the milestone by adopting 26 principles that emphasize pollution control and nature conservation. In 1987, the idea of rotating the center of environmental activities under different themes by selecting different host countries began.

A Green Charter

The Constitution of Nepal has stipulated the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right.  The charter has specific provisions associated with the environment like the right to live in a clean environment, right to clean water and hygiene; right to food sovereignty; the right of the state to effect land reforms on agriculture and environment; and the right of consumers to have quality foodstuffs and services.

The law obliges the state to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. The Supreme Court and High Courts (under Article 133 and 144, respectively) can issue required directives, orders or writs for this purpose.

The charter has conferred powers to all tiers of government in this regard. In reference to the charter, the government of Nepal, under schedule-V, entry 27 (Environment management, national parks, wildlife reserves, wetlands, national forest policies, carbon services) and provincial governments, under schedule-VI, entry 19 (Use of forests and waters and management of environment within the state) and both governments under schedule-VII, entries 12 (Ayurvedic medicine, veterinary, Amchi and other professions), 18 (Tourism, water supply and sanitation) & 23 (Utilization of forests, mountains, forest conservation areas and waters stretching in inter-state form) have to  work on issues of ecology, sanitation, clean and healthy water, wildlife conservation and afforestation.

The Directive Principles provided in part-IV of the charter call upon the local/provincial governments to adopt policies for the protection of the environment (Article 51). In partnership with the private sector, NGOs, communities, religious and cultural groups, the government can take  measures for environmental conservation.

 

A climate-friendly polity

The Environment Protection Act, 2019, meant to  implement Article 30 of the charter, aims to protect and improve the environment and to mitigate pollution; to enforce the right to a clean environment; to grant compensation to victims of pollution; and to implement EIA, Environmental Study and Environment Examination reports. It imposes on the state duties like setting standards to reduce and regulate emissions, hazardous waste, vehicular pollution, industrial pollution and pollution from  hotels, restaurants and equipment. Unlike the Act of 1997, the 2019 Act has outlined measures for dealing with climate change and controlling the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The center has exclusive jurisdiction over identification of areas emitting GHGs, determination of their national reference level, specification of open or green areas, identification of polluted areas, prevention of development activities therein and participation in carbon trading with foreign countries.

Moreover, the Act specifies various roles and functions for provincial governments. Provinces have to develop plans and policies for environmental protection at their levels. Section 3(2)(c) of the Act allows local governments to oversee  related environmental study reports, including EIA. Central and provincial governments can also set up laboratories to test or analyze samples of pollution under Section 18.

 

Gray area, green judgements

The Act has envisaged heavy fines for non-compliance of laws and government policies. Section 35 of the Act stipulates imposing a fine of up to five million rupees at the instance of non-compliance of EIA.

Also, defiance of Initial Environmental Examination would lead to a fine of up to one million rupees. A vast discretionary power is given to law enforcing officials. Minimum fine is not fixed leaving vast discretion, so the provision requires correction. The imposition of a minimal fine in violation of this law may help defeat the spirit of law itself. Also, the Act has no provision of reward for those making  exemplary contributions to environment conservation and protection.

The Local Government Operation Act, 2017 has given local units the power to enact laws, policies and other measures for the protection and promotion of green democracy. Section 11(2)(i) has given local bodies  the power to adopt and enact measures to curb pollution and to ensure clean water and fresh air. Over the years, the Supreme Court has issued judgments on environmental issues. Decades ago, in Surya Dhungel v Godavari Marbles Pvt Ltd (1995) case, it observed that environmental pollution and degradation would be a threat to living beings, so a healthy environment is a requisite for better human life and livelihood. In Pro Public v HMG Nepal (2006, Decision Number 758) the court  sought immediate steps for decreasing the adverse impact of pollution from brick kilns located around densely populated areas, schools, cultural and touristic zones.

Summing up, our green laws are like lampposts and not mere cosmetic arrangements. Nepal deserves to have a truly green democracy. As an ancient country of environment-friendly people, Nepal cannot survive with unsustainable development practices. Environmentalist Keith Hawkins has rightly said: Pollution control is done in a moral, not a technological world. The Himalayan republic has enacted a number of green laws for promoting green democracy. It’s high time to make a pledge for a robust fight against pollution in all forms.

The author is a Judicial Officer at Dhanusha District Court, Janakpur

jhajivesh@gmail.com

 https://theannapurnaexpress.com/news/act-now-to-strengthen-green-democracy-42935

#constitution#green democracy