KATHMANDU, May 12: Even before the new government has completed two months in office, the Supreme Court (SC) has raised serious questions over a series of its decisions. Just four days after issuing an interim order directing the government not to remove squatter settlements, the court on Monday also questioned the government’s decisions to dissolve student unions, Free Student Unions (FSUs), and employees’ trade unions.
The SC on Monday issued short-term interim orders directing the government not to implement its decisions to ban student organizations in universities and dissolve employees’ trade unions.
Conducting a preliminary hearing on a writ petition filed by various student organizations, including one led by All Nepal National Free Students’ Union (ANNFSU) Chairperson Deepak Dhami, the court ordered the government not to immediately enforce the decision. A single bench of Justice Shreekanta Paudel also summoned both parties for discussions on whether a full interim order should be issued.
In the case concerning employees’ trade unions, however, the Constitutional Bench appeared divided. Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla, along with Justices Kumar Regmi and Hari Prasad Phuyal, issued a short-term interim order halting the government’s move to dissolve trade unions through an ordinance. According to sources, Justices Binod Sharma and Sharanga Subedi expressed differing opinions on the order.
UML warns govt against making any key decisions, appointments
Following amendments to the law through an ordinance, Bhawani Dahal, chairperson of the central working committee of the Nepal Government Employees' Organization, among others, filed a writ petition challenging the dissolution decision. Hearing the petition, the Constitutional Bench ordered the defendants to submit written responses within seven days.
An ordinance issued on May 3 amended relevant laws, and on May 5, the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration issued a notice directing the closure of trade union offices.
The Civil Service Act 1993 guarantees representation through official trade unions, and petitioners argued that the government’s move violated constitutional rights related to association, trade unions, and collective bargaining.
The SC’s latest interventions have once again put Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s decisions under scrutiny. Earlier as well, within weeks of taking office, Shah’s government faced criticism and legal challenges after forcibly evicting squatters using bulldozers. The SC subsequently directed the government not to remove settlements built along riverbanks and public spaces in Kathmandu.
Following the eviction drive, displaced families were relocated to public shelters in Banepa, Ichangu Narayan, Bode, Nagarkot, Sallaghari, and other areas. However, the displacement left many families uncertain about employment, healthcare, education, food, and shelter.
A joint bench of Justices Kumar Regmi and Nityananda Pandey had issued the interim order against the removal of squatter settlements after 11 individuals, including Gopal Ranapahali, filed a writ petition on April 24.
Justice Regmi was among those in line for the post of chief justice. However, the Balendra-led government bypassed the seniority roll and recommended fourth-ranked Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma for appointment as chief justice. Observers speculate that this may have had an impact on the hearing related to the squatters’ case.
The SC held that removing squatters and unmanaged settlers from their places of residence without proper legal procedures and rehabilitation measures could cause irreparable harm to their rights to housing, education, healthcare, and other basic needs.
“Considering the humanitarian crisis, the court ordered the government not to forcibly evict or displace squatters and unmanaged settlers without following the procedures and standards set by the government and relevant ministries,” the order states.
The court further noted that although the government claimed displaced families had been provided humane treatment and basic necessities, both the petitioners and the National Human Rights Commission pointed out that many essential needs remained unmet. The SC subsequently directed the government to ensure more effective arrangements for housing, healthcare, education, food, and other necessities for displaced families until the case is resolved.
Calling the matter serious and sensitive, the SC also granted the case priority status and ordered a full hearing within 15 days after written responses are submitted or the deadline expires.
