The decision of the general secretary of the House of Representatives, Bharat Raj Gautam, to invalidate the impeachment motion against the suspended Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has created ripples in the country’s judicial and political circles.

Based on an application from Rana, Gautam on Wednesday wrote to the President’s Office, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Constitutional Council, the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council—informing them that the motion registered on February 13 had become ineffective with the election of a new House of Representatives.

“The earlier letter from the [parliament’s] general secretary that had barred honourable Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana from performing his duties has become ineffective with the holding of the elections to the new House of Representatives on November 20,” Gautam’s letter reads.

“The impeachment motion has also become ineffective as the process did not move ahead even after the Impeachment Motion Recommendation Committee submitted its report following an investigation after the motion was filed and initial discussions were held at the [then] House of Representatives.”

Rana on Tuesday had written to the Parliament Secretariat requesting it to inform the authorities concerned to allow him to resume his work, stating that the impeachment motion registered in the previous House had become ineffective with the election of a new House. Rana has cited Articles 89 (c), 91 (6) and 111 (1o) of the Constitution of Nepal. Article 89 (c) says the tenure of the lawmakers expires with the conclusion of the term of the lower house, while 91 (6a) says the term of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker expires a day before candidacy filing for the elections.

As per Article 111 (10), in case the House of Representatives is dissolved or its term expires when a bill introduced in the House is under its consideration or when a bill adopted by the House is under consideration in the National Assembly, such a bill lapses.

Officials at the Parliament Secretariat argue that Gautam wrote to the authorities as the constitution doesn’t envision continuation of the motion registered in the previous House in the new one. “The Election Commission on Tuesday published the election results which means a new lower house has been elected,” Roj Nath Pandey, spokesperson for the commission, told the Post. “Our constitution doesn’t envision continuation of the motion from the previous House in the new House.”

Rana is preparing to return to the Supreme Court to resume his duties after receiving the letter from the Parliament Secretariat. He has been suspended for the past nine months following the registration of the impeachment motion against him in the former parliament.

“It is natural for me to resume work as chief justice as Parliament has clarified that the motion has become ineffective,” Rana told the Post. He, however, didn’t make any attempt to enter the court on Tuesday after lawyers associated with the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) blocked all court entrances.

Earlier, an emergency meeting of the NBA termed the Parliament Secretariat’s decision to invalidate the motion unconstitutional. “The fate of the motion can be decided only by the new sovereign parliament. We condemn the unconstitutional move of the Parliament Secretariat official [Gautam],” said Gopal Krishna Ghimire, chairperson of the association.

The NBA has also demanded action against Gautam and decided to continue blocking the Supreme Court entrance every day to stop Rana’s entry. Rana retires on Tuesday on the ground of age.

“The constitution has given the right to protest, but the protesters should make sure that their move doesn’t breach the spirit of the rule of law,” said Rana.

Soon after Rana announced his intent to resume duties, the Supreme Court held a full-bench meeting and demanded that the Parliament Secretariat furnish constitutional and legal grounds for its decision to invalidate the impeachment motion—it has demanded an answer from the secretariat on whether the parliament’s action against the chief justice based on the report of the Impeachment Recommendation Committee is still valid; why the motion has become ineffective; because the tenure of the then lower house has expired or because a new lower house has been elected.

“The full bench requests [the Parliament Secretariat] to furnish as soon as possible the constitutional and legal grounds of its decision to declare the motion ineffective,” reads the full-bench decision. Though the recommendation committee submitted its report concluding that there were enough grounds for Rana’s impeachment, the motion was never tabled for vote in the House.

On the other hand, the government has claimed that the motion is still valid and it will be presented in the new lower house. “The impeachment motion against Rana will get continuity in the upcoming House,” said Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, who also is the government spokesman. “The new parliament will take a decision on the motion.”

However, not everyone agrees. Some constitutional lawyers say the motion doesn’t pass on to the new House. Bipin Adhikari, a professor and a former dean at the Kathmandu University School of Law, said ideally the Parliament Secretariat should have written the letter soon after the end of the House session after the announcement of the election date.

But it didn’t write immediately because then Speaker Agni Sapkota didn’t want that. “Gautam has every authority to write such a letter and he rightly did so, albeit a little late,” Adhikari told the Post. “However, it doesn’t seem Rana will be allowed to work as he has just a few days before he retires.”

Meanwhile, a writ petition has been filed at the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Parliament Secretariat. The petitioner, advocate Ananta Luitel, has argued that the decision of the secretariat is an attack on the jurisdiction of the sovereign parliament. The first hearing on the petition has been slated for Sunday.