Supreme Court (SC) justices Balaram KC, Girish Chandra Lal and Prakash Wasti must be squirming now. Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal has reminded the top court how its ruling dismissing a writ petition on the extension of the Constituent Assembly (CA) can be (mis)interpreted for questionable motives.

The apex court's interpretation of the Interim Constitution while deciding on a writ petition challenging the one-year extension of the Constituent Assembly is coming back to haunt it. In that ruling, the three-member SC bench said that the CA's task was to draft the constitution and hence it could not expire unless that task was completed. There had been multiple interpretations of what the bench meant.

One Law Commission official wrote in an article in a Nepali newspaper arguing that most interpretations, even by noted constitutional experts, missed a crucial aspect of the SC's wise words: "ahile ko awastha" (the existing situation). The ruling had been made earlier, and on the writ petition challenging the extension on 28 May, 2010; it only came to light after newspapers published the interpretation. The law official said the ruling should be seen in the backdrop of the last extension and not as a blanket endorsement of future extensions.

"Dissolving the Constituent Assembly is out of question," said PM Khanal on Monday while inaugurating the AGM of the FNCCI. "The assembly has the specific mandate of concluding the peace process and drafting a new constitution. Its fate cannot be altered until the mandate is fulfilled," said Khanal. Oh, and he did not fail to add: "This is the wish of the people as well."

Khanal of all politicians should know what the wish of the people is. Does Devi Prasad Regmi ring a bell? This former cadre of the party led by Khanal slapped him in public in Itahari in January. A loud cry of sympathy reverberated across the country. It was not for Khanal, but for Regmi.

As for the life of the CA, it is not for the government to decide. Public opinion matters and it can no longer be ignored, as has been the case so far. Another extension of the CA is possible only if there is some tangible progress on the contents of the new constitution.

At least two of the justices on the bench that have ruled on the writ have noted that the ruling was meant for extension on 28 May, 2010. They have said that if there is to be another extension, the court will look at it afresh.
Political parties cannot go on extending the CA's term without convincing the people why they need another extension under the present circumstances. There has been hardly any progress to justify another extension. There is every possibility that another extended term would mirror the one that is about to expire. Moreover, Khanal should be the last person calling for another extension. He wasted seven months of the extended term, working overtime to dislodge a majority-wielding government led by his party colleague, Madhav Kumar Nepal. Since succeeding in becoming prime minister -of another majority government -he has wasted a further two months in trying to give shape to his cabinet, and is still struggling.

Governance is nearly non-existent, let alone good governance. If government is active, it is on the front of conjuring one plan after another to loot the state exchequer. Finance Minister Bharat Mohan Adhikari's 'white paper' is a pointer in that direction. And this government wants another extension.

In the next 40 days or so, the political parties must show us, and not just through cosmetic measures, their tangible roadmap for writing the constitution.

damakant@gmail.com