A writ petition has been filed at the Supreme Court demanding that the court bar the chairs and members appointed to various constitutional bodies from discharging their duties.

President Bidya Devi Bhandari on Wednesday appointed 32 office bearers to 11 constitutional bodies.

The appointments have run into controversy, for they were made on December 15 after the government introduced an ordinance to amend at least two provisions of the Constitutional Council Act.

On Tuesday, senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi had approached the court demanding that the recommendations made by the Constitutional Council be quashed. But it was registered only on Wednesday after the President appointed office bearers to the constitutional bodies.

At least two writ petitions were already pending at the court against Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s move of introducing the ordinance to amend the Constitutional Council Act.

But despite the case being sub-judice, Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, one of the members of the prime minister-led Council, administered oath of office and secrecy to 32 of the 38 appointees.

These appointees have not gone through parliamentary hearings, a process made mandatory by the constitution.

“Article 292 of the constitution has made parliamentary hearings mandatory for any appointment to constitutional bodies but they were administered oath without conducting a hearing as the committee was dead after the government dissolved the House of Representatives,” said Tripathi. “I have demanded that the court bar the new office bearers from discharging their duties besides quashing their appointments.”

In his petition, Tripathi has argued that the appointments were made with a malafide intention.

“The recommendation decision made by the Constitutional Council on December 15 last year is unconstitutional,” reads the petition.

The Council decision to recommend officials for the constitutional bodies had been registered at the Parliament Secretariat on December 20, hours after Oli dissolved the House.

The appointments seem to have been made as per Rule 26 (2) of the Joint Parliamentary Meeting Regulation of the federal parliament, which says there would be no obstruction for the recommended people to assume office in constitutional bodies if the hearing committee fails to take any decision within 45 days of receiving the letter from the Council.

“But the 45-day period stands only if the hearing committee had started its process and failed to complete the hearing,” Laxman Lal Karna, who chaired the hearing committee until the House existed, told the Post. “This is not the situation now, as the hearing committee had died before it received the list, as the House had been dissolved. Today’s oaths and appointments violate Article 292.”