Supreme Court Identifies Eight Reasons for Viewing the Return of Ravi’s Case as a ‘Complex Legal Question’

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Attorney General’s decision to amend the case against Ravi Lamichhane as involving ‘complex legal questions,’ thereby requiring resolution by a full bench. The Court raised eight legal issues concerning whether the Attorney General’s authority to amend the charge sheet is absolute or subject to objective grounds. It directed that the case be examined by the full bench with clear explanations regarding additional evidence, absconding defendants, and political motives in the charge sheet amendment process. Kathmandu, 29 Chaitra.

The Supreme Court described the Attorney General’s decision to amend the case against Ravi Lamichhane, chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party and former Home Minister, as constitutionally and legally complex. In its interpretation of writ petitions filed against two decisions by Attorney General Savita Bhandari Baral, the Court emphasized that such decisions involving complex legal questions must be addressed by a full bench consisting of three or more judges, as mandated by legal provisions.

The bench of Justices Binod Sharma and Abdul Aziz Musalman concluded that the matter involves complex legal questions. Senior advocates including Dinesh Tripathi filed separate writ petitions challenging Bhandari’s two decisions, arguing they contravened constitutional and legal frameworks. The Supreme Court has issued eight questions to be considered when assessing the validity of the Attorney General’s decisions.