Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The Supreme Court’s interim order halting the government’s plan to recall 11 ambassadors has stirred debate over how far an interim government can act beyond running elections. The bench, led by Justices Sharanga Subedi and Shrikant Poudel, emphasized that this government was formed primarily to oversee parliamentary elections. The court also referred to the President’s Office, which highlighted that the interim government exists to ensure elections are completed within six months.

However, the government appears in no mood to respond to the SC order. Prime Minister Sushila Karki, who is looking after the Foreign Ministry portfolio, has asked all recalled ambassadors to return and report to her ministry. The government step is an indication that it is not bowed down to any pressures.

At the heart of the court order is a tension between the government’s administrative powers and its temporary mandate. By blocking the ambassador recalls, the court raised two questions: does labeling this government as election-focused indirectly limit its other duties, and does the order challenge the validity of filling constitutional posts after the House is dissolved? Legal experts remain divided. Some see the interim order as a necessary safeguard to prevent potential overreach, while others note it has no binding effect beyond this particular case.

Nepal Bar Association President Bijay Prakash Mishra interprets the order as a clear message: the interim government should focus on elections and leave longer-term decisions to the next elected administration. Mishra stressed that the Constitution requires parliamentary hearings for ambassadorial appointments, and bypassing that process could be legally challenged. In this sense, the judiciary is reaffirming its role as a guardian of constitutional procedures.

The government, however, maintains a different view. Deputy Attorney General Sanjiv Raj Regmi argues that elections are just one responsibility, and the executive’s other duties continue. He sees the order as limited to the recall decision itself, not as a statement on broader governance powers. Regmi also pointed out that a June decision by the constitutional bench allowed appointments of 52 constitutional officials without parliamentary hearings, suggesting that precedent still supports government action in similar cases. He added that the administration could file a petition to vacate the interim order, and the court has the discretion to revoke it if deemed unnecessary.

Politically, the situation creates a delicate balancing act. Gen Z and other critics demand swift accountability for past governments’ alleged corruption and nepotism, viewing ambassador recalls as a tool to address those concerns. At the same time, the court’s order limits the government’s ability to act decisively in this regard, leaving it caught between judicial caution and public expectation for transparency.

In practice, this interim order signals that the government must tread carefully. It cannot assume unchecked authority, but neither is it entirely powerless. The solution likely lies in pursuing legal channels while maintaining focus on elections, ensuring both constitutional compliance and responsiveness to citizen demands. How the government navigates this path will test its ability to respect the law while addressing calls for accountability from a politically engaged population.