Nepal caretaker PM furnishes written reply in SC over contempt of court cases

Amid the ongoing political turmoil in the country, Nepal caretaker Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Thursday reached the country's Supreme Court to furnish written reply over the cases filed against him. 

This comes as Nepal Supreme Court last month had summoned PM Oli in person within seven days with a written response on why he should not be punished for contempt of court. 

“Single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma ordered PM Oli to appear before the court in the contempt of court cases over his comments over a senior advocate and subsequent comments about the sub-judicial case of house dissolution,” said Devendra Dhakal, assistant spokesperson, Supreme Court last month. 

Earlier, two advocates had filed separate cases of 'Contempt of Court' against Oli last month over his remarks on the Parliament dissolution case, which is undergoing discussion at the court along with subsequent comment over a senior advocate. 

Advocates Kumar Sharma Acharya and Kanchan Krishna Neupane filed the cases against Oli, who is functioning as a 'caretaker prime minister' after dissolving lower house and calling fresh elections, before schedule. 

Advocates have claimed that Oli tried to influence the court and made disparaging remarks against legal practitioners. In an event on January 22, Oli during his address at a local gathering claimed that parliament dissolution has been made over time in Nepali history and there is no provision to restore the house. 

While defending himself over the issue, which now is undergoing discussion at court, Oli took a jibe at a senior advocate and former chairman of Nepal Bar Association, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, calling him a 'grandfather' lawyer and asked petitioners not to trouble him. 

Oli further attacked Bhandari calling his presence at the Supreme Court a 'farce'. The former chair and senior advocate, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, earlier in the week while taking part in the discussion had termed the latest move of Oli as unconstitutional. 

The petitioners, who lodged a case against Oli in the Supreme Court, have claimed the statement by Oli has evoked Article 128 (4) of the constitution. 

Over a dozen writ petitions have been lodged against Oli after he recommended the President to dissolve the lower house for failing to get an absolute majority in the parliament.