Nepal SC stays implementation of deal reached by pol parties

Nepal's Supreme Court today stayed the implementation of a landmark 16-point agreement reached by warring political parties of the quake-hit nation to end years of impasse over the federal structure in the new constitution.
The apex court issued an interim order, temporarily halting the implementation of the agreement reached among the four major parties -- the Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Terai-based Madhesi Front -- on June 8.
A single bench of Justice Girish Chandra Lal issued the order, directing the defendants not to implement the pact as per the Interim Constitution Article (1), 82 and 138, until further ruling.

The apex court made the ruling in response to a writ filed by an advocate and a Madhesi activist, raising objection to certain points of the deal.
The writ argues that the issues of state restructuring and delimitation of federal states, number and names should be decided by the Constituent Assembly before its dissolution as per Article 138 of the Interim Constitution.
As part of a compromise deal, the four parties had agreed to adopt an 8-province federal model, parliamentary system of governance, mixed electoral model and include the provision of a constitutional court for 10 years in the new statute.

These four political parties command around 490 seats in the 601-member Constituent Assembly (CA).

Four Madhes-based parties -- Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Nepal, Sadbhawana Party, Terai Madhes Democratic Party, and Terai Madhes Sadbhawana Party -- however have opposed the deal and boycotted Constituent Assembly meeting in protest.
They demand that the issues related to naming and demarcation of federal provinces should be settled through the Constituent Assembly, saying the deal to form a commission for the purpose goes against the Interim Constitution.
Constitution writing has proved cumbersome for Nepal's ruling and opposition parties. For the last eight years, they have vigorously argued their differences, mainly over forms of governance, names and number of federal units, electoral system and judicial system.