Writ at top court against new Civil, Criminal CodesA writ petition has been filed at the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday, arguing that some provisions of the recently implemented new Civil and Criminal Codes contradicted with the constitutional provisions.
A writ petition has been filed at the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday, arguing that some provisions of the recently implemented new Civil and Criminal Codes contradicted with the constitutional provisions.
Four days after the codes came into effect, Advocate Yagyamani Neupane filed a writ demanding the apex court quash eight provisions of the new Civil and Criminal codes. The codes were implemented on Friday, replacing the General Code—better known as Muluki Ain—implemented by first Rana Prime Minister Jung Bahadur that had been guiding civil and legal proceedings for the last 165 years. Arguing that the restriction on taking photographs without permission under the new criminal code contradicts Article 19 (1) and (2) of the constitution, Neupane in the writ has demanded the SC scrap the provision to the extent that restricts taking pictures.
The media fraternity has also been urging the government to amend the provisions in the new law, including the one that bars journalists from taking pictures without permission.
The petitioner has also demanded the court scrap the provision of the Criminal Code for the medical professionals not to recommend any medicine that could injure or take the patient’s life claiming that contradicts Article 17 (1), 30 and 35 of the constitution the doctors could stop treating patients due to the fear of legal action.
The Nepal Medical Association (NMA)—the umbrella body of doctors in the country—has also taken a serious exception to the Criminal Code-2074, saying the law is against the agreement reached with the government. Demanding that the government amend the Code, the NMA has warned the government of protest programmes, including halting their services and handing over their medical licences to the Nepal Medical Council, unless its demands are not addressed in 15 days.
Petitioner Neupane has also demanded scrapping of the provision to restrict begging, claiming that it contradicts the constitutional provision of the right to live with dignity as per Article 16 and the right to food ensured by Article 36 as the state has not managed the basic needs to the poor people and those with physical disabilities.