Kathmandu: The country is in yet another constitutional crisis.

The crisis is regarding the King’s alleged intervention in the selection of some members for the vacant constitutional posts.

Two diametrically opposing views are currently in vogue. The first holds that the King as a constitutional monarch must honor the recommendations of the Constitutional Council and therefore the King is bound to nominate the very name as suggested by the Council. The King has no choice, this set maintains.

Others defend the King’s right and claim that the King too must be allowed to have his say on matters pertaining to the selection of members for the constitutional council posts.

The first set has its logic drawn from the universal concept of a constitutional monarchy. This set presumes that the King, the constitutional monarch, is more or less like a rubber stamp of the sort of British monarchy and possess no right or whatsoever to reject the selections of the Constitutional Council.

The contending set wishes to see the imbroglio in wider perspective. This set believes in allowing the monarch a real say in such matters for it claims that a personality of the sort of the constitutional monarch who as per the constitution is the protector of the constitution could raise his eyebrows if he sees the person(s) thus nominated and sent by the constitutional council for the monarch’s perusal is not fit for the honored post.

The controversy arose when some months back the council proposed the name of Mr. Bhoj Raj Pokhrel, a former HMG Secretary, for the post of the Election Commissioner. The King reportedly had some reservations on the name proposed by the council. As the rumors go, the King recently talked to the men housed in the Council to reconsider their previous decision and add some more good names so that he could select one among the many.

Unsubstantiated reports say that Mr. Pokhrel possesses soft corner for the congress party led by Girija Prasad Koirala.

The King’s request to the members of the Council got leaked when Congress Speaker Taranath Bhat apprised the whole story to his colleagues at a meeting held recently in Teku.

With Mr. Bhat’s revelation, two separate theories are being discussed in the Nepali academic and constitutional circle.

The first set says that Mr. Bhat’s revelation amply suggests that the King has exceeded his constitutional limits and that he must correct his intervention in the selection process by accepting the first name as proposed by the Council members some months back.

The other set says that Taranath Bhat by disclosing his conversation with the King at the Palace has committed a political blunder and by doing so he has acted in an “irresponsible” manner. Leading advocate Bishwa Kant Mainali talking to the NTV the other day opined that any private conversation with the Head of State should not be made public as per the constitution now in force. According to him, no court of law could discuss or initiate debate over any matter that the King does or accomplishes in private with any leader, be it the prime minister or for that matter any leader of the sort of Mr. Bhat.

He however, also said that such talks assume no seriousness at a time when major political parties have been claiming that the constitution has already derailed.

” I wonder why the political parties have made a hue and cry for this when they themselves have been saying that the whole affair since the Royal move of October 4, 2002 was an unconstitutional one”, added advocate Mainali.

However, the Chief Justice who also happens to be a member of the constitutional council when grilled by his colleagues Monday said that he was not supposed to divulge the details as demanded by his friends in the judicary.

“I am not a politician and that since I am attached to judiciary, I must abide by the ethics of the profession”, so said the CJ.

Summing it up, what comes to the fore is that the King in a subtle manner wishes to assert some powers that he could use at time of crisis in the country. This he already did by using the article 127 and assumed executive powers on his personality. In a democracy, generally the executive powers are vested in the Prime Minister. The King has already set precedence.

The King apparently also wishes to have his say in important constitutional post selection process. This he has already hinted.