Court does not hear all the cases  through a single procedures. Based on the nature and complexity of case, different types of procedures are adopted. According to the legal scenario of Nepal, mainly three types of procedures are applied in the court when the cases is  filed i.e. Summary Procedures, Special Procedures and General Procedures. It can be said that application of general or regular procedure is a rule and application of summary or special procedure is an exception. Regular procedure is applied in all cases unless law prescribed specific procedure for particular type of cases. The summary proceeding is applied in various jurisdictions in minor cases. It is simple and speedy than the regular procedure that is devised to avoid wastage of time in minor cases. Special procedure is applied in on the basis of nature, complexity and the impact of case in society. General or regular procedure is applied in all cases except otherwise prescribed by the law.(Muluki Civil code, 2074 section 3)

कानून भन्नाले हामी देश को नीति र नियमको संग्रह बुझ्ने गर्छौ । कानून बिना कुनै पनि एउटा सभ्य समाजको परिकल्पना गर्न सकिदैन । कानून नहुनु भनेको संविधानका प्रावधानहरुलाई बेवास्था गरेर मानिसको पद, हैसियत र पहुँच अनुसार नै राज्य सञ्चालन हुनु हो । संविधानले हरेक नागरिकलाई समान ढँगले हेर्नुपर्दछ भनेर समानताको हकको व्यवस्था गरेको छ । 

    तर समानताको हक छ भन्दैमा हरेक मानिसलाई के साच्चीकै राज्यले एउटै नजर मा हेर्छ त ? पक्कै यो सम्भव पनि नहुन सक्ने विषय हो जो कुरा AV DICEY ले विधिको शासनमा उल्लेख गरेको कानूनका अगाडी समानताको  सिद्दान्त विपरीत पनि हुनपुग्छ । सबै नागरिकलाई न्यायिक दृष्टिकोण बाट चाहिँ एउटै नजरले हेर्न सक्नुपर्छ जो कुरा स्वतन्त्र न्यायपालिकाको एउटा मुख्य उद्देश्य पनि हो ।

    एउटा राज्यमा  हरेक मानिसहरू एउटै रूपले हेरिनु पर्दछ भन्ने कुरा नकार्न पनि सकिदैन तर यसका पनि केही अपवादहरु छन् ।  जस्तो कि राज्यले कानूनको अगाडि समानता भन्ने सिद्दान्त भित्राउँदै गर्दा अर्को एउटा महत्वपूर्ण सिद्दान्त पनि बिर्सनु हुँदैन जसले समन्याय को कुरा गर्दछ । कुनै पनि राज्यले हरेक मानिसलाई एउटै नजरले कहिले पनि हेर्न सक्दैन । राज्यले राज्यका विभिन्न  पदमा रहेकालाई नै उनीहरुको अबस्थाको  आधारमा भिन्न भिन्न व्यवहारहरु र सेवा सुविधा प्रदान गर्दै नै आएको हुन्छ । जस्तो यो कुरा हेर्दा के संविधानको प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख गरेको हरेक नागरिक कानूनको अगाडी समान हुने भन्ने व्यर्थ छ त? सबैले सोच्नुपर्ने भएको छ ।

    त्यो हैन, नेपालको संविधान धारा १८ एकदमै न्यायोचित र अति आवश्यक संवैधानिक प्रावधानको रूपमा आएको हो र यो महत्वपूर्ण पनि छ । पहिले नेपालमा बढ्दो जातीय भेदभाव , छुवाछुत जो कुनै पनि विषयबाट हुने गथ्र्यो जस्तो की लिंग, जात,रंग, धर्ममा हुने गथ्र्यो त्यसलाई नै रोक्न यो प्रावधान आएको हो र यो हुनुपनि पर्दछ । यो भन्दैमा कसैको मनमा किन आजभोलि SO CALLED LOWER CASTE AND FEMALE  लाई कोटा त भन्ने प्रश्न उठ्न सक्ने स्वाभाविक नै हो तर त्यो सबै समाजमा समानता ल्याउनका लागि हो ।  पहिले देखि महिला धेरै कुरा मा पछि परेका हुनाले पनि महिलाको समर्थन गर्नका लागि PALMARO PROTOCAL पनि आएको छ । समाजमा पछि परेका जात,व्यक्ति र अन्यलाई अरु मानिस सरह नै ल्याउनको लागि यो कोटा प्रणाली आएको हो र धेरै सन्दर्भमा आवस्यक पनि छ ।

 ऐतिहासिक र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रूपमा, सकारात्मक कार्यको ( Affirmative Action) समर्थनले रोजगारी र तलबमा असमानता हटाउन, शिक्षामा पहुँच बढाउन, विविधता प्रवद्र्धन, र गल्ती, हानी वा अवरोधहरू हटाउने जस्ता लक्ष्यहरू हासिल गर्न खोजिरहेको प्रष्ट पनि छ ।

  नेपालको न्यायालयले पनि विभिन्न समयमा कानूनको अगाडी समानता र समन्याय सम्बन्धित विभिन्न नजिरहरु प्रतिपादन गर्दै आएको छ । जस्तो

१) बाबुराम पौडेल बिरुद्द श्री ५ सरकारको मुद्दामा कानून अगाडि समानता र कानूनको समान संरक्षणको अवधारणाको व्याख्या गरिएको थियो र अदालतले स्वेच्छाचारी र भेदभावपूर्ण तरिकाले विवेकाधिकारको प्रयोग गर्न नहुने र समान व्यक्तिहरू बीचमा समान परिस्थितिमा समान तरिका  प्रयोग गरिनु पर्ने पनि व्यवस्था गरेको थियो।

२) अधिवक्ता श्याम मास्के विरुद्द कानून, न्याय तथा संसदीय मामिला मन्त्रालयको मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले ‘एकतर्फ राज्यले लैङ्गिक भेदभाव नगरी कानूनको कार्यान्वयनमा एकरूपता ल्याउन खोज्दा अर्काेतर्फ कानुन बनाउने प्रवृत्ति जसमा महिला र पुरुष बीच एउटै किसिमको व्यवहार र अधिकार नरहेको अवस्थामा यो विधिको शासनको मर्मविपरीत भएको ठहर गरेको छ । जसरी यसले पुरुष र महिलालाई समान र न्यायपूर्ण व्यवहार गर्दैन भन्ने सिद्दान्त प्रतिपादन गरेको छ ।

त्यसैगरी एक प्रसिद्द कानूनविद् John Rawls ले आफ्नो न्यायको सिद्धान्त ( Theory of Justice) मा  यी दुई सिद्धान्तहरूको समग्रतालाई न्यायलाई निष्पक्षताको रूपमा लिएका छन् । जसलाई निम्नानुसार व्यक्त गरिएको छ ।   प्रत्येक व्यक्तिलाई सम्भव भएसम्म अरू सबैजस्तै समान अधिकार र स्वतन्त्रता हुनुपर्छ ।सामाजिक तथा आर्थिक असमानतालाई सहि तरिकाले समायोजन गरियो भने मात्र  धेरै भन्दा धेरै ब्यक्ती तथा समुदायहरु यसबाट लाभान्वित हुने र राज्यले प्रदान गर्ने सम्पुर्ण अवसरहरु बराबर तवरले हस्तान्तरण हुन्छन् । यो सिद्धान्तको मुख्य उद्देश्य भनेको असमानताहरुलाई पहिचान गर्ने तथा पिछडिएको समुदायलाई चाहेको काममा अवसर प्रदान गर्नुपर्ने हो ।

    त्यसैगरी Noms Chomsky एक प्रख्यात भाषाविद्, दार्शनिक र सामाजिक आलोचक जसले  भाषाविज्ञान, राजनीतिक सिद्धान्त, मिडिया विश्लेषण, र शक्तिको आलोचना जस्ता विभिन्न क्षेत्रहरूमा धेरै मुख्य सिद्धान्तहरू विकास गरेका छन् उनका जुन सबै अधिकारलाई चुनौती दिने र अझ न्यायोचित र न्यायको पक्षमा वकालत गर्ने प्रतिबद्धतामा आधारित छन्  र सबैको उद्देश्य भनेको समतामूलक समाजबारे नै हो ।  उनको योगदान मुख्यतया शक्ति संरचना, पुँजीवाद र साम्राज्यवाद, सामाजिक न्याय, समानता र लोकतान्त्रिक सिद्धान्तहरूको वकालत गर्ने आलोचनाहरूमा निहित छ । उनले असमानता, पुँजिवादको प्रभाव, र दमनकारी प्रणालीलाई चुनौती दिन तल्लो तहको आन्दोलनको आवश्यकतामा व्यापक रूपमा उल्लेख गरेका छन् ।

अन्ततः विधिको शासनमा उल्लेखित कानूनको अगाडी समानता भित्र समन्याय पनि आफैमा आउनुपर्ने सिद्धान्त नै हो । कानूनले समान नजरले मात्र हेरेर कहिलेपनि न्यायोचित हुदैन त्यसका लागि समन्याय पनि अपरिहार्य नै छ जो हाम्रो वर्तमान नेपालको संविधानले प्रष्टसँग अपनाएको पनि  छ । समन्याय अपनाए सँगै समाजमा रहेको हरेक वर्ग एकै स्तरमा आइपुग्न सक्छन् र नेपालको संविधानले प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख गरेको समाजवादको धारणा लागू गर्नसकिन्छ जसले समतामूलक समाजको निर्माण गर्न मद्दत पु¥याउँछ ।

म कालो कोट लगाई सेतो र उज्यालो भबिस्य बनाउन रुचाउन मान्छे ,,

 उनी कालो साडी र नसालु आखामा कालो गाजलको धर्को लगाई मलाई आफ्नो प्रेमको अन्धकारमा डुबाउन चाहने मान्छे ।।

म प्रत्यछ भेट्दा उनि सङ्ग नजर जुधाउन डराउने मान्छे ,,

तर उनी हरेक रात ऐठन मा स्वर्गकी परि झै

सजियर मेरो निन्द्रा बिउझाउन आउने मान्छे ,,

मलाई बन्नु छैन तिम्रो दिलको अदालतको न्यायधिश

 किनकी तिम्लाई चाहने वकिल हरुको कमि छैन बाजारमा

 मुस्कुराउदै रातो लिपिस्टिक लायको ओठ खोल्दै भन्छिन हजुर जस्तो कोहि छैन हजारौ हजारमा ,,

 उनको प्रेम प्रस्ताब मेरो दिलको अदालतमा बिचाराधिन छ ,,

 किनकी म फस्न चाहदैन उनको अन्धो प्रेमको जालमा

 तर उनलाई छिटै फैसला चाहियो रे यहि आउने सालमा

नत्र भने बस्छिन गरे जन्मकैद पायको कैदिको हालमा !!

 उनको प्रेम प्रस्ताब स्विकार नगरे पछि मेरो परिवार सम्म पुगेर पुनराबेदन गर्छिन गरे ,

 त्यहाबाट पनि मुद्दा नजिते मृत्युदन्ड स्विकार गरि मर्छिन गरे ,,

 कसरी सम्झाउ बुझाउ उनिलाई जबकी मेरा सर्बोच्य अदालत स्रह रहेका

मेरा आमा बुवा छोराले कालो कोट लगायको हेर्ने प्रखाई मा छन

कालि केटि ल्याहोस भन्ने पर्खाई मा छैनन त्यसैले म कालो कोट रुचाउछु काली केटि हैन ।।

कबिता - वरल्ड च्यामपियन बि.सि.

 कानुन सङ्काय बिधार्थी

 ठेगाना – सुर्खेत

नोट ; काली केटि भनेर कुनै भेदभाब गरेको हैन |

  Emergency power is a constitutional weapon of government in every state for solving the critical and serious situation of the country. In an emergency period, a state can suspend various fundamental and legal rights, therefore we can say emergency is a necessary evil for a country. It is said that people have to tolerate smaller obstacles for the protection from greater injustice. The threat of sovereignty (by external ground), natural disaster, rebellion, extreme economic….etc are the grounds for an emergency.

Emergency power in the context of Nepal:

l Government of Nepal Act, 1948:

all power was in PM

l Interim constitution of Nepal, 1951:

no clear provision

l The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1959:

 King could use emergency power/The first elected government of Nepal was dissolved by this power

l The Constitution  of Nepal, 1962:

All articles could be suspended except Article 81 (emergency provision) by King

l The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990:

Declared king as Constitutional Monarch. King could declare an emergency at the recommendation of the Council of Ministers and necessary to approve by the House of Representatives by a 2/3 majority.

l The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063:

 President could declare an the emergency in recommendation of the Council of Ministers

But the order had to be ratified with a 2/3 majority of the Legislature-parliament

Present Constitution of Nepal; Constitution of Nepal,2015.

Grounds for emergency:

l Serous problems in the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Nepal

l The security of any part of Nepal  by war, external attack, armed revolt

l Extreme economy  disarray

l Natural calamity

l Epidemic

l President has the right to declare an emergency

l Province government also may request Nepal's government to declare an emergency in the concerned province or any specific area of the province on the grounds of natural calamity or epidemic.

l The order shall be presented before the meeting of both houses of the Federal Parliament for approval within a month from the date of its issuance.

l If approved by a 2/3 majority of the total numbers present at the meetings of both Houses of Federal Parliament.

l Such order shall continue in force for a period of three months from the date of order.

In case of the continuation of the situation, the proposal to extend the period of the order of emergency for less than another 3 months may be forwarded to the Federal Parliament. The order will be continued for a said period if it is approved by the 2/3 majority of both Houses. In case of dissolution of the House of Representatives, the power of the Federal Parliament shall be exercised by the National Assembly. The president can issue other necessary orders to meet the exigencies.

While issuing the order some fundamental rights may be suspended but some fundamental rights shall not be suspended which are following:

Article 16,  subclauses (c) and (d) of clause (2) of Article 17, Article 18, clause (2) of Article 19, Articles 20,21,22 and 24,clause (1) of Article 26, Articles 29,30,31,32,35, clause (1) and(2)of clause 36, Articles 38 and 39, clauses (2) and (3) of Article 40, Article 41,42,43 and 45, the right to constitutional remedy in relation to such Articles pursuant to Article 46 and right to habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Due to suspended rights, no one can go to court for remedy in an emergency period. However, the affected person can file a petition for compensation for damage within three months from the date of termination of the order. In case the petition is filed, the court may arrange for the appropriate compensation, or punish the guilt according to Federal law. The president may, at any time, withdraw such order of state of emergency made in accordance with this Article

In the case of Sumina Pradha and others vs. Ministry of Home and others DN 7467, NKP 2061, P 1396, the Supreme Court has held that although an emergency can be declared, even at the time of emergency if someone is detained illegally through habeas corpus a remedy can be sought and right against illegal detention exists.  

  Hence, while focusing on emergency powers, it shall be noted that some of the fundamental rights can be derogated while others cannot.  (Most important: See. Art. 273(10) of the new constitution which mentions what sort of right can be derogated and what right cannot be derogated.)

  The word constitution has been derived from the term  ‘Constitutio’ which means to establish. This term has been defined by different jurists as no single definition can cover it all.

As according to Thomas Paine “A constitution is not the act of government, but of the people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right….. A constitution is a thing antecedent to the government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution.

A.V. Diecy has defined it as “Constitution is the set of rules which governs the government”

Lord Bryce “Constitution is the aggregate of laws and customs under which the life of the state goes on”

Constitution as a fundamental law of the land

The constitution is the fundamental law of the land because it sets the parameters to determine which law is valid and which one is not. It is also known as the highest and supreme law of the land as Supreme law indicates a law that has a higher legal status than other laws. Where there is supremacy of the constitution, a parliament must only pass laws that comply with the constitution. It determines how political power is organized or exercised. The constitution is the fundamental law of a country which creates a system of government and provides validity to all other laws. It is the basic framework of the government. No law that is passed by the federal or state government contravenes the rights, privileges and processes described in the constitution. It also determines the composition and functions of the state organs and regulates the relationship between the individual (citizen) and the state. The fundamental law is the foundation of our society. Through this document, our fundamental rights are secured and protected against infringement by the government. In a country that is based on the rule of law is found in their constitution. The fundamental law is intimately connected with fundamental rights because the ultimate purpose of that law is to protect and defend the fundamental rights of sovereign individuals. Sovereignty itself is the subject of law. No legislature can make a law and no government act contrary to the Constitution. No act of executive, legislature, judicial or quasi-judicial of any administrative agency can stand if contrary to the constitution.

According to the Blacks Law Dictionary, supreme law is the law which determines the constitution of the government in a nation or state and prescribes and regulates the manners it exercises. The organic law of the nation.

Status of the Constitution as a fundamental law of the land in various countries  So many countries recognise the principle of the constitution as a fundamental law of the land.

USA

The constitution of the United States is a contract of powers delegated to the federal government by 50 states, to perform services which are difficult and impossible for individual states. The constitution as the fundamental law of the land was first time recognised by the US Supreme Court in the case of Marbury V. Madison in 1803

UK

The UK developed a parliamentary system of government as well as the rule of law but it has no written constitution. It has parliamentary supremacy. Parliament has the sole power to make laws and can be amended easily in a simple majority.

Nepal

Nepal has also adopted this theory literally. Nepal has a written constitution known as the supreme law of the land. The source of the constitution is the people. The legislature is only a representative body under the constitution. The source of authority of all organs of Nepal including the legislature is the constitution, which created them. We followed the parliamentary system of government as well as the rule of law. The Constitution has the sole power to control.

     Similarly in the case of Iman Singh Gurung vs Royal Nepali Military Court, Man Bahadur Bishwakarma vs HMG; Secretariat of Ministry of Council et al., and in several other cases, the Supreme Court gave its verdict establishing that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land.

Constitutional provisions

Article -1. Constitution as the fundamental law: (1)This Constitution is the fundamental law of Nepal. Any law inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

 Article-133. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court: Any citizen of Nepal may file a petition in the Supreme Court to have any law or any part thereof declared void on the ground of inconsistency with this constitution or…..

… or any law formulated by the provincial Assembly is inconsistent with the law formulated by the Federal Parliament.

…or any law formulated by the Municipal Assembly or Village Assembly is inconsistent with the law formulated by Federal Parliament or provincial Assembly,

and the Supreme Court shall have an extraordinary power to declare that law to be void either ab initio or from the date of its decision if the law appears to be so inconsistent.

    Hence, the Constitution can be defined as the fundamental law of the Land.

Court does not hear all the cases  through a single procedures. Based on the nature and complexity of case, different types of procedures are adopted. According to the legal scenario of Nepal, mainly three types of procedures are applied in the court when the cases is  filed i.e. Summary Procedures, Special Procedures and General Procedures. It can be said that application of general or regular procedure is a rule and application of summary or special procedure is an exception. Regular procedure is applied in all cases unless law prescribed specific procedure for particular type of cases. The summary proceeding is applied in various jurisdictions in minor cases. It is simple and speedy than the regular procedure that is devised to avoid wastage of time in minor cases. Special procedure is applied in on the basis of nature, complexity and the impact of case in society. General or regular procedure is applied in all cases except otherwise prescribed by the law.(Muluki Civil code, 2074 section 3)

कानून भन्नाले हामी देश को नीति र नियमको संग्रह बुझ्ने गर्छौ । कानून बिना कुनै पनि एउटा सभ्य समाजको परिकल्पना गर्न सकिदैन । कानून नहुनु भनेको संविधानका प्रावधानहरुलाई बेवास्था गरेर मानिसको पद, हैसियत र पहुँच अनुसार नै राज्य सञ्चालन हुनु हो । संविधानले हरेक नागरिकलाई समान ढँगले हेर्नुपर्दछ भनेर समानताको हकको व्यवस्था गरेको छ । 

    तर समानताको हक छ भन्दैमा हरेक मानिसलाई के साच्चीकै राज्यले एउटै नजर मा हेर्छ त ? पक्कै यो सम्भव पनि नहुन सक्ने विषय हो जो कुरा AV DICEY ले विधिको शासनमा उल्लेख गरेको कानूनका अगाडी समानताको  सिद्दान्त विपरीत पनि हुनपुग्छ । सबै नागरिकलाई न्यायिक दृष्टिकोण बाट चाहिँ एउटै नजरले हेर्न सक्नुपर्छ जो कुरा स्वतन्त्र न्यायपालिकाको एउटा मुख्य उद्देश्य पनि हो ।

    एउटा राज्यमा  हरेक मानिसहरू एउटै रूपले हेरिनु पर्दछ भन्ने कुरा नकार्न पनि सकिदैन तर यसका पनि केही अपवादहरु छन् ।  जस्तो कि राज्यले कानूनको अगाडि समानता भन्ने सिद्दान्त भित्राउँदै गर्दा अर्को एउटा महत्वपूर्ण सिद्दान्त पनि बिर्सनु हुँदैन जसले समन्याय को कुरा गर्दछ । कुनै पनि राज्यले हरेक मानिसलाई एउटै नजरले कहिले पनि हेर्न सक्दैन । राज्यले राज्यका विभिन्न  पदमा रहेकालाई नै उनीहरुको अबस्थाको  आधारमा भिन्न भिन्न व्यवहारहरु र सेवा सुविधा प्रदान गर्दै नै आएको हुन्छ । जस्तो यो कुरा हेर्दा के संविधानको प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख गरेको हरेक नागरिक कानूनको अगाडी समान हुने भन्ने व्यर्थ छ त? सबैले सोच्नुपर्ने भएको छ ।

    त्यो हैन, नेपालको संविधान धारा १८ एकदमै न्यायोचित र अति आवश्यक संवैधानिक प्रावधानको रूपमा आएको हो र यो महत्वपूर्ण पनि छ । पहिले नेपालमा बढ्दो जातीय भेदभाव , छुवाछुत जो कुनै पनि विषयबाट हुने गथ्र्यो जस्तो की लिंग, जात,रंग, धर्ममा हुने गथ्र्यो त्यसलाई नै रोक्न यो प्रावधान आएको हो र यो हुनुपनि पर्दछ । यो भन्दैमा कसैको मनमा किन आजभोलि SO CALLED LOWER CASTE AND FEMALE  लाई कोटा त भन्ने प्रश्न उठ्न सक्ने स्वाभाविक नै हो तर त्यो सबै समाजमा समानता ल्याउनका लागि हो ।  पहिले देखि महिला धेरै कुरा मा पछि परेका हुनाले पनि महिलाको समर्थन गर्नका लागि PALMARO PROTOCAL पनि आएको छ । समाजमा पछि परेका जात,व्यक्ति र अन्यलाई अरु मानिस सरह नै ल्याउनको लागि यो कोटा प्रणाली आएको हो र धेरै सन्दर्भमा आवस्यक पनि छ ।

 ऐतिहासिक र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रूपमा, सकारात्मक कार्यको ( Affirmative Action) समर्थनले रोजगारी र तलबमा असमानता हटाउन, शिक्षामा पहुँच बढाउन, विविधता प्रवद्र्धन, र गल्ती, हानी वा अवरोधहरू हटाउने जस्ता लक्ष्यहरू हासिल गर्न खोजिरहेको प्रष्ट पनि छ ।

  नेपालको न्यायालयले पनि विभिन्न समयमा कानूनको अगाडी समानता र समन्याय सम्बन्धित विभिन्न नजिरहरु प्रतिपादन गर्दै आएको छ । जस्तो

१) बाबुराम पौडेल बिरुद्द श्री ५ सरकारको मुद्दामा कानून अगाडि समानता र कानूनको समान संरक्षणको अवधारणाको व्याख्या गरिएको थियो र अदालतले स्वेच्छाचारी र भेदभावपूर्ण तरिकाले विवेकाधिकारको प्रयोग गर्न नहुने र समान व्यक्तिहरू बीचमा समान परिस्थितिमा समान तरिका  प्रयोग गरिनु पर्ने पनि व्यवस्था गरेको थियो।

२) अधिवक्ता श्याम मास्के विरुद्द कानून, न्याय तथा संसदीय मामिला मन्त्रालयको मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले ‘एकतर्फ राज्यले लैङ्गिक भेदभाव नगरी कानूनको कार्यान्वयनमा एकरूपता ल्याउन खोज्दा अर्काेतर्फ कानुन बनाउने प्रवृत्ति जसमा महिला र पुरुष बीच एउटै किसिमको व्यवहार र अधिकार नरहेको अवस्थामा यो विधिको शासनको मर्मविपरीत भएको ठहर गरेको छ । जसरी यसले पुरुष र महिलालाई समान र न्यायपूर्ण व्यवहार गर्दैन भन्ने सिद्दान्त प्रतिपादन गरेको छ ।

त्यसैगरी एक प्रसिद्द कानूनविद् John Rawls ले आफ्नो न्यायको सिद्धान्त ( Theory of Justice) मा  यी दुई सिद्धान्तहरूको समग्रतालाई न्यायलाई निष्पक्षताको रूपमा लिएका छन् । जसलाई निम्नानुसार व्यक्त गरिएको छ ।   प्रत्येक व्यक्तिलाई सम्भव भएसम्म अरू सबैजस्तै समान अधिकार र स्वतन्त्रता हुनुपर्छ ।सामाजिक तथा आर्थिक असमानतालाई सहि तरिकाले समायोजन गरियो भने मात्र  धेरै भन्दा धेरै ब्यक्ती तथा समुदायहरु यसबाट लाभान्वित हुने र राज्यले प्रदान गर्ने सम्पुर्ण अवसरहरु बराबर तवरले हस्तान्तरण हुन्छन् । यो सिद्धान्तको मुख्य उद्देश्य भनेको असमानताहरुलाई पहिचान गर्ने तथा पिछडिएको समुदायलाई चाहेको काममा अवसर प्रदान गर्नुपर्ने हो ।

    त्यसैगरी Noms Chomsky एक प्रख्यात भाषाविद्, दार्शनिक र सामाजिक आलोचक जसले  भाषाविज्ञान, राजनीतिक सिद्धान्त, मिडिया विश्लेषण, र शक्तिको आलोचना जस्ता विभिन्न क्षेत्रहरूमा धेरै मुख्य सिद्धान्तहरू विकास गरेका छन् उनका जुन सबै अधिकारलाई चुनौती दिने र अझ न्यायोचित र न्यायको पक्षमा वकालत गर्ने प्रतिबद्धतामा आधारित छन्  र सबैको उद्देश्य भनेको समतामूलक समाजबारे नै हो ।  उनको योगदान मुख्यतया शक्ति संरचना, पुँजीवाद र साम्राज्यवाद, सामाजिक न्याय, समानता र लोकतान्त्रिक सिद्धान्तहरूको वकालत गर्ने आलोचनाहरूमा निहित छ । उनले असमानता, पुँजिवादको प्रभाव, र दमनकारी प्रणालीलाई चुनौती दिन तल्लो तहको आन्दोलनको आवश्यकतामा व्यापक रूपमा उल्लेख गरेका छन् ।

अन्ततः विधिको शासनमा उल्लेखित कानूनको अगाडी समानता भित्र समन्याय पनि आफैमा आउनुपर्ने सिद्धान्त नै हो । कानूनले समान नजरले मात्र हेरेर कहिलेपनि न्यायोचित हुदैन त्यसका लागि समन्याय पनि अपरिहार्य नै छ जो हाम्रो वर्तमान नेपालको संविधानले प्रष्टसँग अपनाएको पनि  छ । समन्याय अपनाए सँगै समाजमा रहेको हरेक वर्ग एकै स्तरमा आइपुग्न सक्छन् र नेपालको संविधानले प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख गरेको समाजवादको धारणा लागू गर्नसकिन्छ जसले समतामूलक समाजको निर्माण गर्न मद्दत पु¥याउँछ ।

म कालो कोट लगाई सेतो र उज्यालो भबिस्य बनाउन रुचाउन मान्छे ,,

 उनी कालो साडी र नसालु आखामा कालो गाजलको धर्को लगाई मलाई आफ्नो प्रेमको अन्धकारमा डुबाउन चाहने मान्छे ।।

म प्रत्यछ भेट्दा उनि सङ्ग नजर जुधाउन डराउने मान्छे ,,

तर उनी हरेक रात ऐठन मा स्वर्गकी परि झै

सजियर मेरो निन्द्रा बिउझाउन आउने मान्छे ,,

मलाई बन्नु छैन तिम्रो दिलको अदालतको न्यायधिश

 किनकी तिम्लाई चाहने वकिल हरुको कमि छैन बाजारमा

 मुस्कुराउदै रातो लिपिस्टिक लायको ओठ खोल्दै भन्छिन हजुर जस्तो कोहि छैन हजारौ हजारमा ,,

 उनको प्रेम प्रस्ताब मेरो दिलको अदालतमा बिचाराधिन छ ,,

 किनकी म फस्न चाहदैन उनको अन्धो प्रेमको जालमा

 तर उनलाई छिटै फैसला चाहियो रे यहि आउने सालमा

नत्र भने बस्छिन गरे जन्मकैद पायको कैदिको हालमा !!

 उनको प्रेम प्रस्ताब स्विकार नगरे पछि मेरो परिवार सम्म पुगेर पुनराबेदन गर्छिन गरे ,

 त्यहाबाट पनि मुद्दा नजिते मृत्युदन्ड स्विकार गरि मर्छिन गरे ,,

 कसरी सम्झाउ बुझाउ उनिलाई जबकी मेरा सर्बोच्य अदालत स्रह रहेका

मेरा आमा बुवा छोराले कालो कोट लगायको हेर्ने प्रखाई मा छन

कालि केटि ल्याहोस भन्ने पर्खाई मा छैनन त्यसैले म कालो कोट रुचाउछु काली केटि हैन ।।

कबिता - वरल्ड च्यामपियन बि.सि.

 कानुन सङ्काय बिधार्थी

 ठेगाना – सुर्खेत

नोट ; काली केटि भनेर कुनै भेदभाब गरेको हैन |

  Emergency power is a constitutional weapon of government in every state for solving the critical and serious situation of the country. In an emergency period, a state can suspend various fundamental and legal rights, therefore we can say emergency is a necessary evil for a country. It is said that people have to tolerate smaller obstacles for the protection from greater injustice. The threat of sovereignty (by external ground), natural disaster, rebellion, extreme economic….etc are the grounds for an emergency.

Emergency power in the context of Nepal:

l Government of Nepal Act, 1948:

all power was in PM

l Interim constitution of Nepal, 1951:

no clear provision

l The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1959:

 King could use emergency power/The first elected government of Nepal was dissolved by this power

l The Constitution  of Nepal, 1962:

All articles could be suspended except Article 81 (emergency provision) by King

l The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990:

Declared king as Constitutional Monarch. King could declare an emergency at the recommendation of the Council of Ministers and necessary to approve by the House of Representatives by a 2/3 majority.

l The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063:

 President could declare an the emergency in recommendation of the Council of Ministers

But the order had to be ratified with a 2/3 majority of the Legislature-parliament

Present Constitution of Nepal; Constitution of Nepal,2015.

Grounds for emergency:

l Serous problems in the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Nepal

l The security of any part of Nepal  by war, external attack, armed revolt

l Extreme economy  disarray

l Natural calamity

l Epidemic

l President has the right to declare an emergency

l Province government also may request Nepal's government to declare an emergency in the concerned province or any specific area of the province on the grounds of natural calamity or epidemic.

l The order shall be presented before the meeting of both houses of the Federal Parliament for approval within a month from the date of its issuance.

l If approved by a 2/3 majority of the total numbers present at the meetings of both Houses of Federal Parliament.

l Such order shall continue in force for a period of three months from the date of order.

In case of the continuation of the situation, the proposal to extend the period of the order of emergency for less than another 3 months may be forwarded to the Federal Parliament. The order will be continued for a said period if it is approved by the 2/3 majority of both Houses. In case of dissolution of the House of Representatives, the power of the Federal Parliament shall be exercised by the National Assembly. The president can issue other necessary orders to meet the exigencies.

While issuing the order some fundamental rights may be suspended but some fundamental rights shall not be suspended which are following:

Article 16,  subclauses (c) and (d) of clause (2) of Article 17, Article 18, clause (2) of Article 19, Articles 20,21,22 and 24,clause (1) of Article 26, Articles 29,30,31,32,35, clause (1) and(2)of clause 36, Articles 38 and 39, clauses (2) and (3) of Article 40, Article 41,42,43 and 45, the right to constitutional remedy in relation to such Articles pursuant to Article 46 and right to habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Due to suspended rights, no one can go to court for remedy in an emergency period. However, the affected person can file a petition for compensation for damage within three months from the date of termination of the order. In case the petition is filed, the court may arrange for the appropriate compensation, or punish the guilt according to Federal law. The president may, at any time, withdraw such order of state of emergency made in accordance with this Article

In the case of Sumina Pradha and others vs. Ministry of Home and others DN 7467, NKP 2061, P 1396, the Supreme Court has held that although an emergency can be declared, even at the time of emergency if someone is detained illegally through habeas corpus a remedy can be sought and right against illegal detention exists.  

  Hence, while focusing on emergency powers, it shall be noted that some of the fundamental rights can be derogated while others cannot.  (Most important: See. Art. 273(10) of the new constitution which mentions what sort of right can be derogated and what right cannot be derogated.)

  The word constitution has been derived from the term  ‘Constitutio’ which means to establish. This term has been defined by different jurists as no single definition can cover it all.

As according to Thomas Paine “A constitution is not the act of government, but of the people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right….. A constitution is a thing antecedent to the government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution.

A.V. Diecy has defined it as “Constitution is the set of rules which governs the government”

Lord Bryce “Constitution is the aggregate of laws and customs under which the life of the state goes on”

Constitution as a fundamental law of the land

The constitution is the fundamental law of the land because it sets the parameters to determine which law is valid and which one is not. It is also known as the highest and supreme law of the land as Supreme law indicates a law that has a higher legal status than other laws. Where there is supremacy of the constitution, a parliament must only pass laws that comply with the constitution. It determines how political power is organized or exercised. The constitution is the fundamental law of a country which creates a system of government and provides validity to all other laws. It is the basic framework of the government. No law that is passed by the federal or state government contravenes the rights, privileges and processes described in the constitution. It also determines the composition and functions of the state organs and regulates the relationship between the individual (citizen) and the state. The fundamental law is the foundation of our society. Through this document, our fundamental rights are secured and protected against infringement by the government. In a country that is based on the rule of law is found in their constitution. The fundamental law is intimately connected with fundamental rights because the ultimate purpose of that law is to protect and defend the fundamental rights of sovereign individuals. Sovereignty itself is the subject of law. No legislature can make a law and no government act contrary to the Constitution. No act of executive, legislature, judicial or quasi-judicial of any administrative agency can stand if contrary to the constitution.

According to the Blacks Law Dictionary, supreme law is the law which determines the constitution of the government in a nation or state and prescribes and regulates the manners it exercises. The organic law of the nation.

Status of the Constitution as a fundamental law of the land in various countries  So many countries recognise the principle of the constitution as a fundamental law of the land.

USA

The constitution of the United States is a contract of powers delegated to the federal government by 50 states, to perform services which are difficult and impossible for individual states. The constitution as the fundamental law of the land was first time recognised by the US Supreme Court in the case of Marbury V. Madison in 1803

UK

The UK developed a parliamentary system of government as well as the rule of law but it has no written constitution. It has parliamentary supremacy. Parliament has the sole power to make laws and can be amended easily in a simple majority.

Nepal

Nepal has also adopted this theory literally. Nepal has a written constitution known as the supreme law of the land. The source of the constitution is the people. The legislature is only a representative body under the constitution. The source of authority of all organs of Nepal including the legislature is the constitution, which created them. We followed the parliamentary system of government as well as the rule of law. The Constitution has the sole power to control.

     Similarly in the case of Iman Singh Gurung vs Royal Nepali Military Court, Man Bahadur Bishwakarma vs HMG; Secretariat of Ministry of Council et al., and in several other cases, the Supreme Court gave its verdict establishing that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land.

Constitutional provisions

Article -1. Constitution as the fundamental law: (1)This Constitution is the fundamental law of Nepal. Any law inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

 Article-133. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court: Any citizen of Nepal may file a petition in the Supreme Court to have any law or any part thereof declared void on the ground of inconsistency with this constitution or…..

… or any law formulated by the provincial Assembly is inconsistent with the law formulated by the Federal Parliament.

…or any law formulated by the Municipal Assembly or Village Assembly is inconsistent with the law formulated by Federal Parliament or provincial Assembly,

and the Supreme Court shall have an extraordinary power to declare that law to be void either ab initio or from the date of its decision if the law appears to be so inconsistent.

    Hence, the Constitution can be defined as the fundamental law of the Land.

Court does not hear all the cases  through a single procedures. Based on the nature and complexity of case, different types of procedures are adopted. According to the legal scenario of Nepal, mainly three types of procedures are applied in the court when the cases is  filed i.e. Summary Procedures, Special Procedures and General Procedures. It can be said that application of general or regular procedure is a rule and application of summary or special procedure is an exception. Regular procedure is applied in all cases unless law prescribed specific procedure for particular type of cases. The summary proceeding is applied in various jurisdictions in minor cases. It is simple and speedy than the regular procedure that is devised to avoid wastage of time in minor cases. Special procedure is applied in on the basis of nature, complexity and the impact of case in society. General or regular procedure is applied in all cases except otherwise prescribed by the law.(Muluki Civil code, 2074 section 3)

कानून भन्नाले हामी देश को नीति र नियमको संग्रह बुझ्ने गर्छौ । कानून बिना कुनै पनि एउटा सभ्य समाजको परिकल्पना गर्न सकिदैन । कानून नहुनु भनेको संविधानका प्रावधानहरुलाई बेवास्था गरेर मानिसको पद, हैसियत र पहुँच अनुसार नै राज्य सञ्चालन हुनु हो । संविधानले हरेक नागरिकलाई समान ढँगले हेर्नुपर्दछ भनेर समानताको हकको व्यवस्था गरेको छ । 

    तर समानताको हक छ भन्दैमा हरेक मानिसलाई के साच्चीकै राज्यले एउटै नजर मा हेर्छ त ? पक्कै यो सम्भव पनि नहुन सक्ने विषय हो जो कुरा AV DICEY ले विधिको शासनमा उल्लेख गरेको कानूनका अगाडी समानताको  सिद्दान्त विपरीत पनि हुनपुग्छ । सबै नागरिकलाई न्यायिक दृष्टिकोण बाट चाहिँ एउटै नजरले हेर्न सक्नुपर्छ जो कुरा स्वतन्त्र न्यायपालिकाको एउटा मुख्य उद्देश्य पनि हो ।

    एउटा राज्यमा  हरेक मानिसहरू एउटै रूपले हेरिनु पर्दछ भन्ने कुरा नकार्न पनि सकिदैन तर यसका पनि केही अपवादहरु छन् ।  जस्तो कि राज्यले कानूनको अगाडि समानता भन्ने सिद्दान्त भित्राउँदै गर्दा अर्को एउटा महत्वपूर्ण सिद्दान्त पनि बिर्सनु हुँदैन जसले समन्याय को कुरा गर्दछ । कुनै पनि राज्यले हरेक मानिसलाई एउटै नजरले कहिले पनि हेर्न सक्दैन । राज्यले राज्यका विभिन्न  पदमा रहेकालाई नै उनीहरुको अबस्थाको  आधारमा भिन्न भिन्न व्यवहारहरु र सेवा सुविधा प्रदान गर्दै नै आएको हुन्छ । जस्तो यो कुरा हेर्दा के संविधानको प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख गरेको हरेक नागरिक कानूनको अगाडी समान हुने भन्ने व्यर्थ छ त? सबैले सोच्नुपर्ने भएको छ ।

    त्यो हैन, नेपालको संविधान धारा १८ एकदमै न्यायोचित र अति आवश्यक संवैधानिक प्रावधानको रूपमा आएको हो र यो महत्वपूर्ण पनि छ । पहिले नेपालमा बढ्दो जातीय भेदभाव , छुवाछुत जो कुनै पनि विषयबाट हुने गथ्र्यो जस्तो की लिंग, जात,रंग, धर्ममा हुने गथ्र्यो त्यसलाई नै रोक्न यो प्रावधान आएको हो र यो हुनुपनि पर्दछ । यो भन्दैमा कसैको मनमा किन आजभोलि SO CALLED LOWER CASTE AND FEMALE  लाई कोटा त भन्ने प्रश्न उठ्न सक्ने स्वाभाविक नै हो तर त्यो सबै समाजमा समानता ल्याउनका लागि हो ।  पहिले देखि महिला धेरै कुरा मा पछि परेका हुनाले पनि महिलाको समर्थन गर्नका लागि PALMARO PROTOCAL पनि आएको छ । समाजमा पछि परेका जात,व्यक्ति र अन्यलाई अरु मानिस सरह नै ल्याउनको लागि यो कोटा प्रणाली आएको हो र धेरै सन्दर्भमा आवस्यक पनि छ ।

 ऐतिहासिक र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रूपमा, सकारात्मक कार्यको ( Affirmative Action) समर्थनले रोजगारी र तलबमा असमानता हटाउन, शिक्षामा पहुँच बढाउन, विविधता प्रवद्र्धन, र गल्ती, हानी वा अवरोधहरू हटाउने जस्ता लक्ष्यहरू हासिल गर्न खोजिरहेको प्रष्ट पनि छ ।

  नेपालको न्यायालयले पनि विभिन्न समयमा कानूनको अगाडी समानता र समन्याय सम्बन्धित विभिन्न नजिरहरु प्रतिपादन गर्दै आएको छ । जस्तो

१) बाबुराम पौडेल बिरुद्द श्री ५ सरकारको मुद्दामा कानून अगाडि समानता र कानूनको समान संरक्षणको अवधारणाको व्याख्या गरिएको थियो र अदालतले स्वेच्छाचारी र भेदभावपूर्ण तरिकाले विवेकाधिकारको प्रयोग गर्न नहुने र समान व्यक्तिहरू बीचमा समान परिस्थितिमा समान तरिका  प्रयोग गरिनु पर्ने पनि व्यवस्था गरेको थियो।

२) अधिवक्ता श्याम मास्के विरुद्द कानून, न्याय तथा संसदीय मामिला मन्त्रालयको मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले ‘एकतर्फ राज्यले लैङ्गिक भेदभाव नगरी कानूनको कार्यान्वयनमा एकरूपता ल्याउन खोज्दा अर्काेतर्फ कानुन बनाउने प्रवृत्ति जसमा महिला र पुरुष बीच एउटै किसिमको व्यवहार र अधिकार नरहेको अवस्थामा यो विधिको शासनको मर्मविपरीत भएको ठहर गरेको छ । जसरी यसले पुरुष र महिलालाई समान र न्यायपूर्ण व्यवहार गर्दैन भन्ने सिद्दान्त प्रतिपादन गरेको छ ।

त्यसैगरी एक प्रसिद्द कानूनविद् John Rawls ले आफ्नो न्यायको सिद्धान्त ( Theory of Justice) मा  यी दुई सिद्धान्तहरूको समग्रतालाई न्यायलाई निष्पक्षताको रूपमा लिएका छन् । जसलाई निम्नानुसार व्यक्त गरिएको छ ।   प्रत्येक व्यक्तिलाई सम्भव भएसम्म अरू सबैजस्तै समान अधिकार र स्वतन्त्रता हुनुपर्छ ।सामाजिक तथा आर्थिक असमानतालाई सहि तरिकाले समायोजन गरियो भने मात्र  धेरै भन्दा धेरै ब्यक्ती तथा समुदायहरु यसबाट लाभान्वित हुने र राज्यले प्रदान गर्ने सम्पुर्ण अवसरहरु बराबर तवरले हस्तान्तरण हुन्छन् । यो सिद्धान्तको मुख्य उद्देश्य भनेको असमानताहरुलाई पहिचान गर्ने तथा पिछडिएको समुदायलाई चाहेको काममा अवसर प्रदान गर्नुपर्ने हो ।

    त्यसैगरी Noms Chomsky एक प्रख्यात भाषाविद्, दार्शनिक र सामाजिक आलोचक जसले  भाषाविज्ञान, राजनीतिक सिद्धान्त, मिडिया विश्लेषण, र शक्तिको आलोचना जस्ता विभिन्न क्षेत्रहरूमा धेरै मुख्य सिद्धान्तहरू विकास गरेका छन् उनका जुन सबै अधिकारलाई चुनौती दिने र अझ न्यायोचित र न्यायको पक्षमा वकालत गर्ने प्रतिबद्धतामा आधारित छन्  र सबैको उद्देश्य भनेको समतामूलक समाजबारे नै हो ।  उनको योगदान मुख्यतया शक्ति संरचना, पुँजीवाद र साम्राज्यवाद, सामाजिक न्याय, समानता र लोकतान्त्रिक सिद्धान्तहरूको वकालत गर्ने आलोचनाहरूमा निहित छ । उनले असमानता, पुँजिवादको प्रभाव, र दमनकारी प्रणालीलाई चुनौती दिन तल्लो तहको आन्दोलनको आवश्यकतामा व्यापक रूपमा उल्लेख गरेका छन् ।

अन्ततः विधिको शासनमा उल्लेखित कानूनको अगाडी समानता भित्र समन्याय पनि आफैमा आउनुपर्ने सिद्धान्त नै हो । कानूनले समान नजरले मात्र हेरेर कहिलेपनि न्यायोचित हुदैन त्यसका लागि समन्याय पनि अपरिहार्य नै छ जो हाम्रो वर्तमान नेपालको संविधानले प्रष्टसँग अपनाएको पनि  छ । समन्याय अपनाए सँगै समाजमा रहेको हरेक वर्ग एकै स्तरमा आइपुग्न सक्छन् र नेपालको संविधानले प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख गरेको समाजवादको धारणा लागू गर्नसकिन्छ जसले समतामूलक समाजको निर्माण गर्न मद्दत पु¥याउँछ ।

म कालो कोट लगाई सेतो र उज्यालो भबिस्य बनाउन रुचाउन मान्छे ,,

 उनी कालो साडी र नसालु आखामा कालो गाजलको धर्को लगाई मलाई आफ्नो प्रेमको अन्धकारमा डुबाउन चाहने मान्छे ।।

म प्रत्यछ भेट्दा उनि सङ्ग नजर जुधाउन डराउने मान्छे ,,

तर उनी हरेक रात ऐठन मा स्वर्गकी परि झै

सजियर मेरो निन्द्रा बिउझाउन आउने मान्छे ,,

मलाई बन्नु छैन तिम्रो दिलको अदालतको न्यायधिश

 किनकी तिम्लाई चाहने वकिल हरुको कमि छैन बाजारमा

 मुस्कुराउदै रातो लिपिस्टिक लायको ओठ खोल्दै भन्छिन हजुर जस्तो कोहि छैन हजारौ हजारमा ,,

 उनको प्रेम प्रस्ताब मेरो दिलको अदालतमा बिचाराधिन छ ,,

 किनकी म फस्न चाहदैन उनको अन्धो प्रेमको जालमा

 तर उनलाई छिटै फैसला चाहियो रे यहि आउने सालमा

नत्र भने बस्छिन गरे जन्मकैद पायको कैदिको हालमा !!

 उनको प्रेम प्रस्ताब स्विकार नगरे पछि मेरो परिवार सम्म पुगेर पुनराबेदन गर्छिन गरे ,

 त्यहाबाट पनि मुद्दा नजिते मृत्युदन्ड स्विकार गरि मर्छिन गरे ,,

 कसरी सम्झाउ बुझाउ उनिलाई जबकी मेरा सर्बोच्य अदालत स्रह रहेका

मेरा आमा बुवा छोराले कालो कोट लगायको हेर्ने प्रखाई मा छन

कालि केटि ल्याहोस भन्ने पर्खाई मा छैनन त्यसैले म कालो कोट रुचाउछु काली केटि हैन ।।

कबिता - वरल्ड च्यामपियन बि.सि.

 कानुन सङ्काय बिधार्थी

 ठेगाना – सुर्खेत

नोट ; काली केटि भनेर कुनै भेदभाब गरेको हैन |

  Emergency power is a constitutional weapon of government in every state for solving the critical and serious situation of the country. In an emergency period, a state can suspend various fundamental and legal rights, therefore we can say emergency is a necessary evil for a country. It is said that people have to tolerate smaller obstacles for the protection from greater injustice. The threat of sovereignty (by external ground), natural disaster, rebellion, extreme economic….etc are the grounds for an emergency.

Emergency power in the context of Nepal:

l Government of Nepal Act, 1948:

all power was in PM

l Interim constitution of Nepal, 1951:

no clear provision

l The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1959:

 King could use emergency power/The first elected government of Nepal was dissolved by this power

l The Constitution  of Nepal, 1962:

All articles could be suspended except Article 81 (emergency provision) by King

l The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990:

Declared king as Constitutional Monarch. King could declare an emergency at the recommendation of the Council of Ministers and necessary to approve by the House of Representatives by a 2/3 majority.

l The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063:

 President could declare an the emergency in recommendation of the Council of Ministers

But the order had to be ratified with a 2/3 majority of the Legislature-parliament

Present Constitution of Nepal; Constitution of Nepal,2015.

Grounds for emergency:

l Serous problems in the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Nepal

l The security of any part of Nepal  by war, external attack, armed revolt

l Extreme economy  disarray

l Natural calamity

l Epidemic

l President has the right to declare an emergency

l Province government also may request Nepal's government to declare an emergency in the concerned province or any specific area of the province on the grounds of natural calamity or epidemic.

l The order shall be presented before the meeting of both houses of the Federal Parliament for approval within a month from the date of its issuance.

l If approved by a 2/3 majority of the total numbers present at the meetings of both Houses of Federal Parliament.

l Such order shall continue in force for a period of three months from the date of order.

In case of the continuation of the situation, the proposal to extend the period of the order of emergency for less than another 3 months may be forwarded to the Federal Parliament. The order will be continued for a said period if it is approved by the 2/3 majority of both Houses. In case of dissolution of the House of Representatives, the power of the Federal Parliament shall be exercised by the National Assembly. The president can issue other necessary orders to meet the exigencies.

While issuing the order some fundamental rights may be suspended but some fundamental rights shall not be suspended which are following:

Article 16,  subclauses (c) and (d) of clause (2) of Article 17, Article 18, clause (2) of Article 19, Articles 20,21,22 and 24,clause (1) of Article 26, Articles 29,30,31,32,35, clause (1) and(2)of clause 36, Articles 38 and 39, clauses (2) and (3) of Article 40, Article 41,42,43 and 45, the right to constitutional remedy in relation to such Articles pursuant to Article 46 and right to habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Due to suspended rights, no one can go to court for remedy in an emergency period. However, the affected person can file a petition for compensation for damage within three months from the date of termination of the order. In case the petition is filed, the court may arrange for the appropriate compensation, or punish the guilt according to Federal law. The president may, at any time, withdraw such order of state of emergency made in accordance with this Article

In the case of Sumina Pradha and others vs. Ministry of Home and others DN 7467, NKP 2061, P 1396, the Supreme Court has held that although an emergency can be declared, even at the time of emergency if someone is detained illegally through habeas corpus a remedy can be sought and right against illegal detention exists.  

  Hence, while focusing on emergency powers, it shall be noted that some of the fundamental rights can be derogated while others cannot.  (Most important: See. Art. 273(10) of the new constitution which mentions what sort of right can be derogated and what right cannot be derogated.)

  The word constitution has been derived from the term  ‘Constitutio’ which means to establish. This term has been defined by different jurists as no single definition can cover it all.

As according to Thomas Paine “A constitution is not the act of government, but of the people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right….. A constitution is a thing antecedent to the government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution.

A.V. Diecy has defined it as “Constitution is the set of rules which governs the government”

Lord Bryce “Constitution is the aggregate of laws and customs under which the life of the state goes on”

Constitution as a fundamental law of the land

The constitution is the fundamental law of the land because it sets the parameters to determine which law is valid and which one is not. It is also known as the highest and supreme law of the land as Supreme law indicates a law that has a higher legal status than other laws. Where there is supremacy of the constitution, a parliament must only pass laws that comply with the constitution. It determines how political power is organized or exercised. The constitution is the fundamental law of a country which creates a system of government and provides validity to all other laws. It is the basic framework of the government. No law that is passed by the federal or state government contravenes the rights, privileges and processes described in the constitution. It also determines the composition and functions of the state organs and regulates the relationship between the individual (citizen) and the state. The fundamental law is the foundation of our society. Through this document, our fundamental rights are secured and protected against infringement by the government. In a country that is based on the rule of law is found in their constitution. The fundamental law is intimately connected with fundamental rights because the ultimate purpose of that law is to protect and defend the fundamental rights of sovereign individuals. Sovereignty itself is the subject of law. No legislature can make a law and no government act contrary to the Constitution. No act of executive, legislature, judicial or quasi-judicial of any administrative agency can stand if contrary to the constitution.

According to the Blacks Law Dictionary, supreme law is the law which determines the constitution of the government in a nation or state and prescribes and regulates the manners it exercises. The organic law of the nation.

Status of the Constitution as a fundamental law of the land in various countries  So many countries recognise the principle of the constitution as a fundamental law of the land.

USA

The constitution of the United States is a contract of powers delegated to the federal government by 50 states, to perform services which are difficult and impossible for individual states. The constitution as the fundamental law of the land was first time recognised by the US Supreme Court in the case of Marbury V. Madison in 1803

UK

The UK developed a parliamentary system of government as well as the rule of law but it has no written constitution. It has parliamentary supremacy. Parliament has the sole power to make laws and can be amended easily in a simple majority.

Nepal

Nepal has also adopted this theory literally. Nepal has a written constitution known as the supreme law of the land. The source of the constitution is the people. The legislature is only a representative body under the constitution. The source of authority of all organs of Nepal including the legislature is the constitution, which created them. We followed the parliamentary system of government as well as the rule of law. The Constitution has the sole power to control.

     Similarly in the case of Iman Singh Gurung vs Royal Nepali Military Court, Man Bahadur Bishwakarma vs HMG; Secretariat of Ministry of Council et al., and in several other cases, the Supreme Court gave its verdict establishing that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land.

Constitutional provisions

Article -1. Constitution as the fundamental law: (1)This Constitution is the fundamental law of Nepal. Any law inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

 Article-133. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court: Any citizen of Nepal may file a petition in the Supreme Court to have any law or any part thereof declared void on the ground of inconsistency with this constitution or…..

… or any law formulated by the provincial Assembly is inconsistent with the law formulated by the Federal Parliament.

…or any law formulated by the Municipal Assembly or Village Assembly is inconsistent with the law formulated by Federal Parliament or provincial Assembly,

and the Supreme Court shall have an extraordinary power to declare that law to be void either ab initio or from the date of its decision if the law appears to be so inconsistent.

    Hence, the Constitution can be defined as the fundamental law of the Land.