KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has ordered Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to appear in the apex court to present written clarification in contempt of court complaints filed against him.
The order issued today will now require Prime Minister Oli to be present in the Supreme Court and furnish his clarification on contempt complaints within seven days.
Responding to four writ petitions filed against Prime Minister Oli, four former Chief Justices and a former House Speaker separately on contempt charges, a single bench of Supreme Court Judge Manoj Kumar Sharma today asked them to present their written clarification on what had happened and why the action should not be taken against them on contempt charges as demanded by petitioners.
All defendants have been provided seven days to furnish their clarifications. Devendra Dhakal, an information officer at the Supreme Court, said that the bench today ordered Prime Minister Oli to be present in the court in person and furnish written clarifications on contempt charges.
Earlier on Tuesday, two contempt complaints against the Prime Minister, one against four Former Chief Justices and one against former Speaker Daman Nath Dhungana were filed at the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate duo Kanchan Krishna Neupane and Kumar Sharma had registered the contempt case against Prime Minister Oli at the Supreme Court separately citing that his recent statement denigrating Senior Advocate Krishna Prasad Bhandari amounts to disrespect to the court and judiciary.
Earlier last Friday, Prime Minister Oli had called Senior Advocate Bhandari ‘grandfather’ making ‘fuss’ in the court, referring to the hearing at the Constitutional Bench in the Supreme Court against his decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.
Similarly, two separate contempt complaints against four Former Justices Anup Raj Sharma, Min Bahadur Rayamajhi, Kalyan Shrestha and Sushila Karki were filed on Wednesday for issuing a joint statement to condemn the government’s decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.
The petitioners argue that the joint statement issued on January 8 was contemptuous as the case was subjudice as well as undermined the independence of the judiciary.
Likewise, former House Speaker Dhungana’s recent statement on the move of government to dissolve the House has also prompted an advocate to file a contempt complaint against him in the Supreme Court.
