The recent Supreme Court ruling, which mandates an additional 20-metre buffer zone besides the Kathmandu Valley’s major rivers like Bagmati, Bishnumati and Manohara, has of late become a piping hot topic of discussion. While intended to facilitate river management and protect the environment, the ruling ignores the other side of the picture: Its socio-economic repercussions for thousands of landowners and households who will be affected by the verdict. To add to their woes, Kathmandu’s Mayor Balendra Shah has rolled up his sleeves to implement the mandate without consulting even his fellow Kathmandu Metropolitan City office bearers, let alone other stakeholders. He appears hell-bent on implementing the verdict.

Shah’s form is in keeping with his reputation of bullheadedness once he decides on a course of action. The recent ruling only appears to bolster his desire to remove riverside settlers and slum areas under the guise of cleaning up Kathmandu. Although Shah uncharacteristically softened his stance through his Facebook post on Sunday, insisting that no homes would be demolished in the process, it happened only after widespread criticism. But then the whole post is rather long-winded, intended more at criticising the federal government and his many critics there rather than reassuring the public of his commitment to protecting their land and property.

The consequences of this verdict cannot be overlooked. Rivers and springs run through much of the valley’s prime lands, where many have poured their hard-earned money. They have legally purchased land and built their homes. With the Supreme Court decision, these homeowners fear their property ownership may no longer be valid. Moreover, the government has a poor track record of compensating displaced people. The issue of 188-ropani land between Gokarna and Guhyeshwari Ghats highlighted is a telling example, as landowners there have yet to be compensated for the loss of their land due to the Bagmati River changing its course.

The Supreme Court’s decision to mandate the additional buffer zone also raises questions about the judiciary’s decision-making. Why does the apex court have to rule by going well beyond what the petitioner has asked, be it in relation to the tenure of police officers or the size of the buffer lands besides major rivers? In this particular case, Shah has wielded the court decision like a wrecking ball. The court must be more circumspect in cases where judicial meddling can, instead of helping, further complicate things and disturb social harmony. (It must also be rather embarrassing for the justices as they are now expected to ‘vacate’ the dubious ruling.)

Coming back to Shah, as Kathmandu’s mayor, he has some major achievements under his belt. Kathmandu is perhaps cleaner now than at any other time in our living memory. The roads are well-lit. Successive measures had failed to pick even these low-hanging fruits. Kudos to Shah. Where he gets it wrong, again, is in his lack of consultations on even vital matters. This does not mean he should start listening to everyone and veer off his priorities. But as the city’s mayor, he should be mindful that the steps he is taking are in the interest of the people who call Kathmandu home. Something Shah has repeatedly ignored is the fact that the capital city Kathmandu is home not just to its long-time residents but also millions of temporary residents from all over the country. It’s a clear choice between short-term popularity and long-term staying power as a leader.