KATHMANDU, JUL 04 -
The Supreme Court’s ruling has complicated the process of introducing the annual budget as it failed to take note of the absence of the parliament, according to experts.
Responding to a writ challenging the government’s preparation to present the budget, the Supreme Court (SC) on Sunday said that the government could unveil the budget in accordance with Article 96 A (1) and (2) of the Interim Constitution. Those articles suggest that the government can propose a budget equivalent to one third of the previous year’s total expenditure in case of special situation that prevents budget presentation at the parliament.
The ruling has ignored that the country is functioning in the absence of the parliament, experts said. “The articles quoted by the Supreme Court envisage a situation when there is existence of the parliament but there is no atmosphere to present the budget,” says Tek Prasad Dhungana, the chief legal advisor to the Parliament Secretariat. “The verdict has added more complexity to the process of bringing the budget.”
While discussions are under way to present the budget through ordinance, clause 96 (2) recommended by the apex court states that the finance minister should introduce a bill regarding authority to spend one third of last year’s budget at the parliament.
“The parliament is not in existence so there is difficulty in implementing the verdict,” said Ramnath Dhakal, former chairman of the State Affairs Committee of the dissolved parliament.
The SC verdict comes amid reported differences between President Ram Baran Yadav and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai over budget formulation. The government is preparing to propose a full-fledged budget through ordinance while the President is pressing the government that it can only bring partial budget.
The President argues that a full-fledged budget would be against the electoral code of conduct as the government has already announced the date for Constituent Assembly elections. He is learnt to have told the prime minister on Monday that he would not declare the ordinance that calls for full budget.
The articles suggested by the Supreme Court in its recent verdict were introduced by amending the Interim Constitution in 2008 when late Girija Prasad Koirala was at the helm of the government. Then, the CPN (Maoist), the largest force elected from the CA, was struggling to form a government under its leadership.
SC Spokesperson Srikanta Poudel, however, said the court’s ruling has paved the way for the government to bring the budget. “The decision allows the government to bring the budget without exceeding one third of the total fiscal estimate of the current year through ordinance,” he told the Post on Tuesday evening.
Article 88 of the Interim Constitution says that the President can promulgate any ordinance on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers when the legislature is not in session. The article also gives power to President to repeal the ordinance any time.
Source: http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/07/04/top-story/sc-verdict-complicated-budget-formulation-issue-say-experts/356572/
0 comments:
Post a Comment