Pokhara, 19 March| The legal status of Kishori Sah, the candidate from Dhanusha-1 representing the Rastriya Swatantra Party, has been plunged into significant uncertainty following two contradictory interim orders issued by the Supreme Court within a span of just three days. This judicial paradox began on 28 February when a single bench led by Justice Sharanga Subedi issued an interim order in favor of Sah, stating that his name was not found on the blacklist of the Credit Information Bureau. The court at that time had cited a letter from the Bureau as evidence to halt any actions based on the blacklisting decision, suggesting that Sah’s candidacy should not be hindered by such designations. However, the situation took a dramatic turn on 1 March when a joint bench comprising Justices Binod Sharma and Meghraj Pokharel refused to issue an interim order for the same individual, concluding that Sah’s name was indeed on the blacklist at the critical time of his candidacy registration.
The core of this legal dispute lies in the timeline of Sah’s blacklisting and his subsequent attempts to clear his name. According to the facts presented, the Election Commission had officially disqualified Sah’s candidacy on 2 March (18 Falgun) based on Section 13(j) of the House of Representatives Election Act, 2017. This specific provision explicitly states that any individual currently on a blacklist according to prevailing laws remains ineligible to contest elections for the House of Representatives. Records indicate that Sah had been on the blacklist since 14 April 2023 (1 Baisakh 2080) and remained so until well after the election process had commenced. It was only on 9 March (25 Falgun) that Sah applied to have his name removed after settling his bank dues, leading to a notification from the Credit Information Bureau on 12 March (28 Falgun) confirming his clearance. While the single bench focused on his current status of being “not blacklisted,” the joint bench focused on the legal reality that existed at the moment he filed his nomination papers.
The joint bench’s decision effectively upholds the Election Commission’s initial move to scrap Sah’s candidacy, viewing it as a natural application of the law. Since the order of a joint bench carries more judicial weight than that of a single bench, the ruling by Justices Sharma and Pokharel will be the one implemented, leaving Sah’s political ambitions in a state of suspension. Sah had interestingly filed two separate writ petitions—one seeking to overturn the Election Commission’s disqualification and demanding to be declared elected based on the votes cast for the ‘bell’ symbol, and another challenging the blacklisting process itself. The Supreme Court has now indicated that these interconnected cases will be heard together in future proceedings to reach a final verdict. This case serves as a poignant example of the complexities surrounding candidate eligibility and the rigorous standards applied by the judiciary regarding financial transparency and legal compliance during the electoral process.
