Deuba Confident of Getting Justice from Supreme Court in Congress Dispute

Kathmandu, Nepal: Former Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba has expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will deliver justice to his faction in the ongoing dispute over the party’s legitimate leadership.

Addressing a national gathering organized by the Deuba-aligned faction of the Nepali Congress in Kathmandu on Friday, Deuba said the dispute within the party had become serious and was affecting the party’s long democratic tradition and organizational practices.

He accused the rival faction of undermining the party’s established procedures by convening a special general convention without adequately following the party statute.

“An intense dispute has emerged within the Nepali Congress, a party with a long history. In the name of a special general convention, efforts have been made to weaken the party by disregarding its statute, procedures and established practices,” Deuba said.

Deuba refrained from making detailed comments on the legal dispute, saying the matter was currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. However, he said he remained confident that the court would provide justice.

“As the matter is currently before the Supreme Court for review, I do not want to make further comments. But I am fully confident that we will receive justice from the Supreme Court,” he said.

The dispute intensified after the Election Commission recognized the executive committee led by Gagan Kumar Thapa as the legitimate leadership of the Nepali Congress following a special general convention.

The Deuba faction subsequently challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the process leading to the recognition of the new leadership was inconsistent with the party’s statute and established procedures.

The Supreme Court had earlier upheld the Election Commission’s decision recognizing the Thapa-led committee. Deuba’s faction has since filed a review petition, claiming that the earlier ruling contained legal and procedural errors.

Under the legal process, the review petition will be considered by a three-member bench. If the bench grants permission for review, the case will proceed to further judicial examination. If permission is denied, the earlier ruling will remain in effect.

Deuba’s faction has also argued that it was not given adequate opportunity to present its position before the Election Commission and that the procedures followed in relation to the special general convention were not consistent with the party’s statute and applicable provisions.

Deuba recalls struggle for democracy

Speaking at the gathering, Deuba also recalled his political struggle during the direct rule of King Gyanendra and linked his past experience with his continued faith in the judiciary.

He said he had refused to compromise his democratic principles despite pressure from the government at the time and was subsequently imprisoned.

“I had said that I was ready to obey the government’s orders, but I could not go against democracy. After that, I was imprisoned,” Deuba said.

He said the judiciary had provided him justice during that period and that the experience had strengthened his confidence in the courts.

“The judiciary gave me justice at that time. I have unwavering faith in the judiciary. I believe that I will receive justice from the court even now,” he said.

Deuba’s remarks indicate that his faction intends to continue pursuing the leadership dispute through the judicial process while maintaining its political and organizational activities.

Two factions continue separate activities

The Congress has remained divided following the special general convention and the recognition of the Thapa-led executive committee.

While the Thapa faction has been presenting itself as the legitimate leadership on the basis of the Election Commission’s decision, the Deuba faction has continued to challenge the decision through legal and political means.

The dispute has raised concerns about the party’s organizational unity and the process for holding its next regular general convention.

The Deuba faction has been emphasizing adherence to the party statute, regular organizational processes and institutional continuity. The rival faction, meanwhile, has defended the special general convention and the leadership elected through it.

Despite the legal dispute, both sides have continued their political and organizational activities.

Deuba says republic belongs to the people

Deuba also spoke about Nepal’s republican system, saying the republic was established through the Constituent Assembly and was not the result of any individual leader’s personal decision.

“The Constituent Assembly brought the republic. Did I bring it? It did not come because I wanted it, nor will it go because I want it to,” Deuba said.

He stressed that the people are the ultimate authority in the country and that Nepal’s political future should be determined according to the people’s mandate.

Deuba also recalled the period of King Gyanendra’s direct rule, saying the political circumstances at the time brought democratic forces together and contributed to the political developments that eventually led to the establishment of the republic.

Court ruling seen as crucial

The Supreme Court’s decision on the review petition is being closely watched within the Nepali Congress. If the court allows the review to proceed, the earlier ruling will be subject to further judicial examination. If the review is rejected, the existing ruling recognizing the Thapa-led committee will remain in force.

The decision could have far-reaching consequences for the party’s leadership, organizational structure and the process of its forthcoming general convention.

The current dispute is considered particularly significant because it concerns not only differences between rival leaders but also the legal recognition of the party’s leadership.

With both factions continuing their activities, the future course of the Nepali Congress is likely to depend on a combination of the Supreme Court’s decision and the possibility of political dialogue between the two sides.