US embassy cable - 02KATHMANDU2033

UNCLAS KATHMANDU 002033 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS 
LONDON FOR POL - RIEDEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV, NP 
SUBJECT: NEPAL SUPREME COURT REJECTS PETITION QUESTIONING 
KING'S APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM GOVERNMENT 
 
REF: A. (A) KATHMANDU 1938 
     B. (B) KATHMANDU 1932 
 
1.  On October 23 the Supreme Court rejected a petition, 
filed by a private attorney, contesting King Gyanendra's 
action in forming an interim government (Reftels) as 
unconstitutional.  According to the Supreme Court registrar, 
the Court threw out the case because the King's action was 
warranted under Clause 127 of the Constitution, which grants 
him authority to remove "difficulties" in implementing the 
Constitution.  The registrar also cited Clause 31 of the 
Constitution, which stipulates that "No question shall be 
raised in any court about any act performed by His Majesty." 
 
2.  Comment:  A constitutional expert has told us that the 
Supreme Court had no alternative but to reject the petition. 
In his reading, the language of Clause 127 does not restrict 
what actions the King may take to remove "difficulties"--even 
if those actions include appointing a caretaker government. 
While the language of Clause 127 is so vague as to allow a 
very liberal interpretation of what the King may do, the 
language of Clause 31, on the other hand, is quite specific 
and unambiguous.  "No question" in "any court" about "any 
act" by the King left the court very little leeway.  We 
expect future challenges--if there are any--to meet a similar 
fate. 
MALINOWSKI