The Office of President has defended the decision of President Bidya Devi Bhandari not to authenticate the amendment bill to the Citizenship Act, arguing it was in line with her duty to safeguard the constitution.

Responding to a show cause notice from the Supreme Court after a preliminary hearing on the writ petitions challenging her refusal to authenticate the bill, which was resent for the presidential seal, the President’s Office Sheetal Niwas has said the head of the state can keep the bills sent without following due process on hold.

“The bill was kept on hold keeping in mind the President’s constitutional duty to safeguard and abide by the statute, as the bill was resent for authentication without any discussion, consultation and study of comments from the President’s Office, thereby violating the spirit of the constitution,” reads one of the points in the clarification submitted to the Supreme Court through the Attorney General’s Office.

A single bench of Justice Hari Phuyal on September 25 had asked the President’s Office to explain why President Bhandari didn’t endorse the bill and why her office shouldn’t be directed to authenticate it.

Five different writ petitions were lodged by advocates asking for the Supreme Court’s intervention against Bhandari’s refusal to authenticate the bill that was twice endorsed by the federal parliament.

The petitioners have claimed the decision to put the bill on hold without authenticating was a clear breach of Article 113 (4) of the Constitution of Nepal. They have demanded that the court ask the President to correct her move and direct her to authenticate the bill.

The article says if the President sends back a bill along with her remarks and if both the Houses reconsider the bill and send it again to the President as it was presented or with amendments, the President shall authenticate the legislation within 15 days.

However, Bhandari did not authenticate the bill and let the September 20 deadline lapse.

In its response to the apex court, the President’s Office said the bill was kept on hold as it was re-sent for authentication against existing norms, processes and constitutional spirit. As per Article 113 (4) of the constitution, said the President’s Office, it is mandatory for both the houses of parliament to reconsider a bill if the President’s Office returns it with comments and reservations. The two Houses, however, decided not to change the bill ignoring the President’s demand.

“The bill was returned with comments with the expectation that a new bill would be prepared as per spirit of the constitution,” reads another point in the clarification.

The President Office has explained the reasons for keeping the bill on hold in around three dozen points. “The office has answered to the Supreme Court through the Attorney General’s Office,” Tika Dhakal, a press advisor to President Bhandari, told the Post.

The bill was introduced mainly to open the door for thousands of children of the parents who got citizenship by birth to acquire citizenship by descent. The Act allowed everyone born within Nepal’s territory before April 12, 1990 to get citizenship by birth. However, their children are yet to get citizenship by descent in the absence of a law. (The constitution says the provision to grant them citizenship will be guided by federal law.)

The bill was dragged into controversy mainly after the CPN-UML objected to a provision in the bill to retain existing provisions in the Citizenship Act on marital naturalisation. It says a foreign woman married to a Nepali man can obtain naturalised citizenship when she starts the process of renouncing her original citizenship.

Women rights activists said the bill was discriminatory as the provision doesn’t apply to foreign men married to Nepali women.

While defending the President’s decision to sit on the bill, the President Office has said Bhandari is confident that a new federal citizenship bill will be prepared in line with the Constitution of Nepal incorporating the concerns her office had raised.

It is understood that the bill that was forwarded without following due process couldn’t have been authenticated by the President, the clarification argues, and hence the decision to withhold the bill forwarded for authentication without parliamentary endorsement is lawful and as per the spirit of the constitution. The President’s Office has also demanded that the writ petitions be annulled.

The President Office also claims the writ petitions were registered with ill intent. “It is a disrespect to the President’s Office to register the writ petitions against Clean Hand Doctrine with mala fide intent and for the court to conduct the hearing on them,” reads one point in the clarification. “Therefore the petitions deserve to be annulled prima facie.”