INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
KATHMANDU, FEBRUARY 18President Bidhya Devi Bhandaris choice to grant amnesty to all local level candidates, who were fined by the
Election Commission for stopping working to submit information of their election costs within the stated deadline of 30 days has actually
drawn condemnations from attorneys.
CANs choice on Sandeep Lamichhane draws flak
Election Commission reveals outcome of parliamentary
elections
The EC had actually enforced fines on 123,624 prospects, including Mayor of Kathmandu city Balendra (Balen) Shah, who had
actually failed to send details of election expense within the deadline of 30 days.
The presidents amnesty move comes 2 days after the
constitutional bench of the Supreme Court remained the EC choice to slap hefty fines on prospects for failing to submit survey expenses.A
news release provided by the Presidents Office states the president given pardon to candidates according to the suggestion of the Cabinet
meeting in accordance with Article 276 of the constitution.Article 276 specifies that the president may, in accordance with law, grant
pardon, suspend, commute or remit any sentence passed by any court, judicial or quasi-judicial, or administrative authority or
institution.Senior Advocate Mithilesh Kumar Singh said the outbound presidents decision approving amnesty to more than one lakh candidates
was an insult to the Supreme Court as the issue was sub judice
He said it was the first case when the president, on recommendation of the federal government, had waived the fines imposed on prospects
Often the president waives or commutes convicted peoples sentence in rarest of rare cases but I never heard the president waived fines on
someone, Singh said, What occurs if the president waives taxes and fines enforced by Nepal Electricity Authority? Singh said the federal
government should have waited till the SC passed its decision in the case submitted by Kathmandu metropolis Mayor Balen Sah
Singh described the presidents relocation a stunt for inexpensive popularity.Senior Advocate Chandra Kanta Gyawali also stated the
governments amnesty choice was incorrect as the problem was sub judice in the SC
The governments relocation renders the case filed by Balen Shah against the EC ineffective.If the federal government takes such choice in
every case defining it as a political case, then that will undermine the self-reliance of the judiciary
Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi said the presidents blanket amnesty weakened the guideline of law
Candidates who want to be role model need to be aware of the dominating laws
If they can not follow the law, how can they become good example? he added.A Cabinet conference on Thursday chose to advise waiver of fines
imposed by the EC on candidates.Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Kumar Thapaliya took the governments decision positively.He said the EC
could have gathered was nearly 25 billion rupees.Mayoral candidates were slapped the greatest amount- Rs 750,000 for not sending details of
election expenditure on time.Thapaliya said the EC slapped great since it wished to implement the dominating laws
Pardoning of fines by the president legitimizes the ECs decisions Thapaliya stated and included it likewise highlighted that the law needs
to not have provisioned such big amounts as great and hence the law was unwise.Thapaliya said the governmental amnesty also provided the
message that candidates should follow the laws
Since today, 137 prospects have paid fine of over 40 million rupees
Thapaliya said the governments choice was unclear about those who had paid their fines
For us, compliance with the law is essential and not the fine.The EC had disallowed 369 prospects from objecting to parliamentary and
provincial elections under the PR election system for failing to pay fines
According to area 25 (1) of the Election Commission Act, prospects are required to furnish details of their election expenditures within 30
days of the outcome of the election
The EC had actually likewise chosen to ban prospects stopping working to pay their fines from contesting elections for six years.Balen had
actually looked for to rescind sections 26 (3) and 26 (5) of the Election Commission Act arguing that these arrangements opposed
constitutional provisions
He stated that Section 26 (5) of the Act did not provide a possibility to the affected person to be heard and the chance to be heard
proposed under Section 26 (4) was not enough
He argued that sections 26 (3) and 26 (5) contradicted short articles 18 (1 ), 20 (8 ), 20 (9 ), 126 (1 ), and 246 (1) of the constitution
and must be declared null and void.A version of this article appears in the print on February 19, 2023, of The Himalayan Times
This short article first appeared/also appeared in https://thehimalayantimes.com
