13 Magh, Kathmandu. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court will probably give a decision today after a brief hearing on the dispute over the restoration of the citizenship of Home Minister Ravi Lamichhane.
On Friday, Home Minister Lamichhane’s lawyers will hold the rest of the argument, after which the writ petitioners will have their turn to argue. As the debate ends before lunch time, there is a possibility that the judgment will be pronounced on Friday itself along with a summary order. If not, the Supreme Court can also set a date for pronouncing the decision.
The Supreme Court decides the dispute on the basis of the questions raised by the writ petitioners, the written answers to them, the discussion notes submitted by legal professionals, and the important questions raised during the hearing.
Looking at the questions and debates that have been raised so far, it seems that some questions have been raised with importance in the dispute over Lamichhane’s citizenship recovery.
The first question is whether the Nepali citizenship automatically ‘doesn’t remain’ after taking a foreign citizenship voluntarily, or should the state agencies know about it?
In the reply sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Supreme Court, it has been insisted that if any citizen acquires foreign citizenship, the state agencies will not automatically be informed and only after the information is received, the citizenship will be revoked. In response to that, the writ petitioners have submitted a discussion note and have drawn attention to the provision that according to section (10) of the Citizenship Act, 2063, ‘Nepalese citizenship shall not be retained after a citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of a foreign country’. It seems that it will be easy to give its conclusion only after the Supreme Court addresses this question.
Second question, are the conditions of ‘not maintaining’ and ‘relinquishing’ Nepali citizenship in Section (10) of the Citizenship Act the same or are they different?
According to the claim of the petitioner lawyers who approached the Supreme Court, Nepali citizenship ‘does not last’ after taking foreign citizenship, so there is no validity to the Nepali citizenship taken by Lamichhane in 50 years. They have claimed that taking foreign citizenship is equivalent to giving up Nepali citizenship.
But according to the claim of Lamichhane legal professionals, in case of giving up Nepali citizenship and taking foreign citizenship, only if you go through the process of (Section 10-2), you need to get a certificate of Nepali citizenship again.
Lamichhane has not renounced his Nepali citizenship and his lawyers have submitted a plea that he should not apply to the district administration office again.
It seems that the constitutional bench will also address this question when taking a decision on Lamichhane’s citizenship.
The third question is, should the information about relinquishing foreign citizenship be reported to the relevant authorities or can it be sent to other agencies?
In the writ application, Lamichhane has claimed that Lamichhane’s citizenship will not automatically be maintained because he has not registered a Nissa (application) in the prescribed format before the District Administration Office, Kathmandu (the concerned Chief District Officer).
In response to that, legal practitioners in favor of Lamichhane have claimed that as soon as the document of renunciation of citizenship is received from the American Embassy, the details of the same have been submitted to the Press Council through the Ministry of Immigration, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Communications, and the state agencies should automatically take information. They claim that since these bodies are state bodies, Lamichhane will automatically know that he renounced his US citizenship and his old Nepali citizenship will automatically be retained.
The fourth question, does ‘non-permanent’ citizenship get validity or not?
In Wednesday’s hearing, the judges asked questions about the citizen, the identity of the citizen and the certificate of citizenship. As soon as the hearing began, Judge Anil Kumar Sinha, senior advocate Dr. Quoting Article 11 of the Constitution, Surendra Bhandari was asked, ‘Is obtaining Nepalese citizenship and being a person eligible for citizenship the same or different?
During the debate, Judge Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada also asked the co-judge Sanjeevraj Regmi, ‘Even if he is a Nepali citizen, can the nomination papers for the House of Representatives elections be registered without a citizenship certificate?’
These questions are focused on whether the old certificate of citizenship issued in 2050 with Home Minister Lamichhane will be recognized or not. According to the claim of the writ petitioners, since the certificate of Nepali citizenship ‘does not remain valid’ when Lamichhane takes US citizenship, the old citizenship certificate is not recognized.
But Lamichhane’s legal professionals kept insisting that the old Nepalese citizenship certificate will be removed and will be activated again after giving up US citizenship. Senior advocate Sushil Pant said in the debate, ‘Citizenship number is the same, all the details are the same, once all the details are the same, the old citizenship will be revived, those who have not renounced their citizenship should not apply again and get it.’
Fifth question, will the old citizenship of Nepali automatically wake up after giving up the foreign citizenship or will there be any role of the state agencies?
The lawyers of both sides are ‘dealing’ with this question in the center during the debate notes and hearings. According to the legal professionals of Home Minister Lamichhane, after he renounced his American citizenship, his old Nepali citizenship will be automatically activated, and no state agency will play a role in that process.
But the writ petitioners are claiming that the role of the state is to grant citizenship to any eligible person. According to their claim, renunciation of citizenship and non-retention of citizenship lead to the same situation as Nepali citizenship is not retained after taking foreign citizenship. And, to get Nepali citizenship again, you have to apply to the relevant office. The interpretation of this question by five judges will conclude Lamichhane’s citizenship dispute.
In the end, what will be the decision?
The Supreme Court found that even though Lamichhane renounced his US citizenship, he did not complete the process of obtaining the Nepali citizenship certificate and if his old citizenship certificate is not recognized, he will have to complete the process and obtain the citizenship.
In that case, the old citizenship submitted by him when he was a candidate for the House of Representatives will not be recognized and his position as an MP will be revoked.
In Nepal’s constitution, a person who is not a member of parliament can also become a minister, but in the case of Lamichhane, it seems that since he does not have citizenship, he will not even hold the position of home minister.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court upholds Lamichhane’s old citizenship certificate as legal, his position as MP and minister will remain intact.
Decisions made earlier by the Election Commission are also automatically valid. In addition, the investigation on his citizenship certificate is also considered unjustified.
