Sunday 26th May 2024
×
Sunday 26th May 2024
×
गृहपृष्ठPoliticsSupreme Court orders Prachanda to furnish written clarification in seven days on contempt charge

Supreme Court orders Prachanda to furnish written clarification in seven days on contempt charge

NCP Chairman Prachanda is the latest in the list of over half dozen dignitaries including Prime Minister Oli to face contempt complaint in the apex court separately 


KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has ordered Nepal Communist Party (NCP) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ to furnish his written clarification on a court contempt complaint.

In response to a contempt complaint registered by Advocate Samir Balami against NCP Chairman Prachanda, a single bench of Judge Manoj Kumar Sharma sought a written clarification from him within seven days. 

Earlier on Monday, Advocate Balami had filed the contempt of court complaint against NCP Chairman Prachanda at the Supreme Court, arguing that his recent remark to issue verdict from people’s court if judges do not make judgement in line with the public’s aspiration was contemptuous.

The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing on the case for Tuesday. Earlier last Friday, NCP Chairman Prachanda had warned that they would take action against Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli by convening the House of Representatives through the Speaker if the Supreme Court does not punish him.

Though the petition was scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, it was later postponed for Wednesday after the bench put it on hold citing time constraint. 

NCP Chairman Prachanda is the latest in the list of dignitaries ordered by the Supreme Court in recent days to present their clarification on contempt cases. 

The Supreme Court has already ordered Prime Minister KP Oli to be present in the Supreme Court and furnish his clarification on contempt complaints Similarly, 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 in separate cases. 





Write your comments