Parsuram Banjade v.

Durgadas
Shrestha et al.

Presented By— Binod Raj Subedi

R.N. 28
5th Semester, NLC
shadybinod@gmail.com
Case Presentation Relating to Habeas Corpus and
Natural Justice
 Writ No.864
Decision No.547
Division Bench
Honorable justice: Nayan Bahadur Khatri
Honorable justice: Ranganath Upreti

Plaintiff
Parsuram Banjade, Resident of Argakhachi District

VS.
Respondent
Durgadash Shrestha, Bagmati Special Court including
Singhadurbar Kathmandu
 Facts
• On date 2027/1/18, Yagyamurti Banjade was arrested from Naya Sadak and put
into detention in Central jail.
• He was arrested by the unknown people who were in civil dress and he was
unknown about the grounds of accusation.
• Later, he was taken to the Kathmandu police line and asked for statement by
giving a warrant.
• His Majesty's of government delegated its power to Durgadas Shrestha, Chairman
of Special Court which was published in Nepal Gazette on 2027/1/21.
• The case was decided by Durgadas Shrestha on 2027/2/29 with the punishment
of compensation and imprisonment according to Section 53 of Chapter on
Punishment.
• The writ petition of Habeas Corpus with other necessary orders was filed in
Supreme Court.
 From Plaintiff Side,
• According to Parsuram Banjade, Yagyamurti Banjade was put into illegal
detention and was excluded from his personal life and liberty.
• The warrant given to my brother cannot be taken as arrest warrant as
mentioned in The Muluki Ain (General Code)2020, Number 121.
• According to Article 11, Sub-Article(6) of the constitution, No person who is
arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed the grounds of
such arrest but my brother was unknown about the reason why he was put into
detention.

संविधानको धारा ११ को उपधारा (६) बमोजिम s'g} lu/ˆtf/ ePsf] JolQmnfO{ lu/ˆtf/ ePsf]
sf/0f ;lxtsf] ;"rgf, oyfzSo rfF8f], glbO{ y'gfdf /flvg] 5}g / To:tf
JolQmnfO{ cfkm"n] /f]h]sf] sfg"gL Joj;foL;Fu ;Nnfx lng] / lghåf/f k'k{If ug]
{ clwsf/af6 jl~rt ul/g] 5}g . :ki6Ls/0f – o; pkwf/fsf] k|of]hgsf] lgldQ æsfg"gL
Joj;foLÆ eGgfn] s'g} cbfntdf s'g} JolQmsf] k|ltlglwTj ug{ tTsfn k|rlnt sfg"gn]
clwsf/ lbPsf] h'g;'s} JolQmnfO{ ;d]t hgfpF5 .
• According to the first warrant, he was prosecuted under Organizations Act 2019 but there is
description of different types of crimes under it and to know under which crime he was arrested is his
fundamental right.
• The permission of the court was not taken within 24 hours which was unconstitutional.
• Yagyamurti Banjade was accused for the action against Organization Act 2019 where he was given the
warrant of detention along with the permission of Bagmati Special Court. Later when the evidence
was not enough for this, another accusation was made against the National Directives Act 2018.
• His Majesty's of government delegated its power to Durgadas Shrestha and make
commitment to punish according to its direction which was published in Nepal Gazette.
• Durgadas forcefully asked for statement to Yagyamurti which was not as per the Article 11,
Sub-Article(5) of the constitution.
• On 2027/2/16, detention warrant was given which was illegal and according to which the
order of detention and compensation was given by Bagmati Special Court not by Durgadas.
• There arises a question that in which law it is described that to establish the student
union is crime and how Special Court got the right to decide the case of such crime.
• The provision that one cannot be judge in his/her own case is clearly explained in The
Muluki Ain (General Code)2020, Number 35. So the decision given by Bagmati Special
Court is not valid.
• The provisions of Sub-Article(1) of Article 10 and Sub-Article(1),2(C),(3), (5), (6) of
Article 11 of the constitution were ignored.
• According to the opponents, there is no necessary of legal practitioners in this case so
my brother couldn’t consult with any legal practitioners.
• The Supreme Court should issue an order of Habeas Corpus to free the illegally
detained Yagyamurti Banjade.
• Until the final decision is given, he should be granted bail.
 From Respondent Side
• The applicant Yagyamurti Banjade has been arrested under the
organization control Act, 2019. The evidence was not enough under
this act, but because he had been running student union without
the permission of His Majesty and this is against the National
Directives Act, 2018.
• His arrest and detention is in accordance with Muluki Ain Number
121 (The applicants claim that he was not known about the
accusation when he was detained is false.)
• He was arrested in 2027/1/18, 2027/1/19 was Saturday so we got
the court order in 2027/1/20.

According to Sub-inspector
Kapil Muni Sitaula
• According to Durgadas Shretha,The applicant was not circumstanced to give his statement
under fear. The power was delegated by His Majesty to me which was published in Nepal
Gazette dated 2027/1/22. The applicants action is against the act. Hence no legal right has
been infringed and therefore the petition should be repealed.
• According to Sherbahadur Thapa (member of Bagmati Special Court) The applicant was
not punished by Bagmati Special Court. It was the decision of Durgadas Shrestha for the
compensation and imprisonment. Special Court doesn’t have relation to it.
• The kathmandu Record Court confirmed with the statement of Durgadas Shrestha.
• According to the Jailer of central jail The Secretary of Home Panchayat Ministry
stated that the power was delegated by His Majesty and was published in Nepal
Gazette.
• The accused was given every right to read, examine and to sign any kind of legal
documents/deeds and he was given chance to meet any related person. The
applicants accusation is false.
 Questions to be solved in this case
• The case of Yagyamurti Banjaade is similar to the cases of other applicants; Durga
Acharya, Pradip Koirala, Machhindra Nath Pathak, Tika Prasad Pokhrel, Rajeshwor
Acharya.
• The questions raised in this case are as follows:
1. Establishing student union falls under National Directive Act, 2018 or not? Durgadas
Shrestha has got the authority to decide the case but is it within his jurisdiction or not?
2. If it does not fall under his jurisdiction then can the court establish the order of Habeas
Corpus or not?
3. Are the provisions of National Directives Act, section 6(1) and the Constitution of
Nepal article 11(2c) contrary to each other or not?
 Decision of the Supreme Court
• Though the applicants have filed the case in different dates, the nature of cases are similar and
hence the question raised can be explained with the same judgment.
• According to law, Durga Das Shrestha has the right to decide the case which is quasi judicial in
nature and should be done with judicial perspective but he cannot be judge in his own case.

• (राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन ऐन (संशोधन सहित) २०१८ को दफा ५ (क) ले दिएको अधिकार प्रयोग गरी श्री ५ को सरकारले आफू ले पाएको सम्पूर्ण अधिकार बागमती
विशेष अदालतको अध्यक्ष श्री दुर्गादास श्रेष्ठलाई प्रत्यायोजन गरेको २०२७।१।२२ गतेको अ.रि.३ खण्ड २० को नेपाल राजपत्रबाट देखिन्छ । राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन
ऐन, २०१८ को वर्खिलाप काम भएमा बागमती विशेष अदालतका अध्यक्ष श्री दुर्गादास श्रेष्ठले कारवाई किनारा गर्न पाउने कु रामा शंका रहन्न

• यस्तो जरिवाना कै द गर्ने जसलाई अधिकार छ, निश्चय पनि निजको निर्णय न्यायिक वा अर्धन्यायिक हुन्छ । यस्तो अधिकारहरु प्रयोग गर्दा न्यायिक प्रक्रिया
अपनाउनु पर्दछ ।

• न्यायाधीशले गरेको निर्णयलाई न्यायिक निर्णय प्रशासकीय अधिकारीको न्यायिक निर्णयलाई अर्धन्यायिक र प्रशासकीय अधिकारीले प्रशासन सम्बन्धी गरेको
निर्णय (जसमा तजविजको मात्रा बढी हुन्छ) लाई प्रशासकीय निर्णय भनिन्छ )
• No decision can be made without jurisdiction. The establishment of Student Union
does not fall under National Directives Act, 2018

• (राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन ऐन, २०१८ (संशोधन सहित) ले देशव्यापी सङ्गठन खोल्न मनाही गरेको छ

• विद्यार्थी सङ्गठन भन्ने शब्दहरु राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन (दोश्रो संशोधन) ऐन, २०२४ ले राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन ऐन, २०१८ को दफा २ (क) र दफा
३ (५) बाट झिके को,

• भएका शब्दहरु विधायिकाले संशोधन गरेर झिक्छ भने त्यसको के अर्थ हुन्छ, त्यो हेर्न पर्छ । पहिले ऐनमा भएका शब्दहरु संशोधन गरी
झिक्नुको अर्थ हुन्छ, विधायिकाले ती शब्दहरुलाई ऐनको दायरा बाहिर गर्ने मनसाय प्रकट गर्‍यो,

• गर्न हुन्न भनेको कु रा कु नै किसिमबाट गर्नु हुन्न तर के गर्नु हुने, के गर्न नहुने, के गरे अपराध हुने, ऐनले गर्न हुन्न भनेको मात्र गर्न नहुने
कि ऐनले गर्नु हुन्छ भन्ने मात्र गर्न हुने कि अर्थात ऐनले गर्न हुन्न भनेको छाडी अरु सबै गर्न हुने कि वा ऐनले गर्न हुन्छ भन्ने देखि बाहेक
अरु के ही गर्नै नहुने कि ……
• Therefore the authority to decide the case is not under Durga Das’ jurisdiction.

• २१. अधिकार प्रत्यायोजन भएकोले मैले आदेश दिएको हुँ भन्ने श्री दुर्गादास श्रेष्ठको जबाफ छ । अधिकार हुँदैमा इन्साफ दिइन्न ।

• तर विधायिकाले अनेक कार्यविधीको व्यवस्था गरेको हामी पाउँछौं । इन्साफ गर्ने धेरै सिद्धान्तहरु जस्तो न्यायाधीशहरु स्वतन्त्र
हुनुपर्छ, आफ्नै बिषयमा आफै न्यायाधीश हुन हुन्न, न्यायाधीशले प्रमाणकै आधारमा मात्र काम गर्नुपर्छ, न्यायाधीशरुले आफ्नो
फै सलामा तर्क कारणहरु दिनुपर्छ, न्यायाधीश स्वयं कानूनको हरहमेसा पालन गर्ने अनुशासित र चरित्रवान हुनुपर्छ आदि धेरै
सिद्धान्तहरु, मुद्दाको कारवाइ पक्षपातरहित न्यायसंगत हुनुपर्छ, पक्षपातपूर्ण छलकपटको कारवाईले दोषी ठहराइएको व्यक्ति दोषी
हुने होइन कि दोषी ठहराउने नै दोषी हुन्छ,

• कु नै मानिसलाई पनि उसको कु रा नसुनी दोषी ठहराउन हुँदैन भन्ने सर्वमान्य सिद्धान्त भइसके को छ । पक्षपातरहित न्यायाधीकारीको
समक्ष आफ्नोतर्फ बाट भन्नु पर्ने सबै कु रा आफ्नो कानून व्यवसायीले भनी दिन्छ भन्ने कु रामा आरोप लागेको व्यक्ति विश्वस्त हुनुपर्छ ।

• कानून व्यवसायी राख्न पाउँ भनेका थिएनन् भन्नु न्यायमा मिल्ने कु रा भएन ।
• Hence the order for the Habeas Corpus can be made.

• जहाँसम्म अधिकारप्राप्त अधिकारीले कानूनबमोजिम दिईएको अदेशबमोजिम थुनामा रहेको व्यक्ति बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको
आदेशबाट छु ट्न सक्दैन भन्ने कथन छ, यसमा वादविवाद हुन सक्दैन,

• निवेदकले बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश जारी हुनुपर्ने ठीक ठिक आधारहरु स्थापित गर्नसके को खण्डमा बन्दी–
प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश हकै जस्तो गरी जारी हुन्छ । बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश जारी गर्ने वा नगर्ने भन्ने सर्वोच्च अदालतको
तजबिजमा रहँदैन । गैरकानूनी थुनमा बन्दी रहेको देखिएमा बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश जारी गर्नै पर्छ । यो बहुतै सरल छिटो
तथा प्रभावशाली रिट हो ।

• गैरकानूनी थुनाबाट बन्दीलाई मुक्त गर्नु बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको मुख्य उद्देश्य हो भन्ने कु रा माथि विवेचना भइसके को छ ।

• प्रस्तुत के शमा विद्यार्थी सङ्गठन खोलेको मुद्दा राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन ऐन, २०१८ को दायराभित्र नपर्ने भई राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन ऐन,
२०१८ को दफा ५ (क) बमोजिम तोकिएको अधिकारीको श्री दुर्गादास श्रेष्ठको अधिकारक्षेत्र भित्र नपर्ने देखिनाले त्यस्तो
अधिकारक्षेत्रको अभावमा गरेको आदेश गैरकानूनी हुँदा र बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश जारी गर्न नमिल्ने देखिएन ।
 Contd.
• The question of the contrary nature of the law is not much relevant with the facts
of the cases because it had been already proved that the applicant was illegally
detained.
तर राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन ऐन,२०१८ को दफा ६ (१) नेपालको संविधानको धारा ११ (२) (ग) संग बाझिएको छ, छैन भन्ने र ऐनको
प्रस्तावनामा धारा १७ को उपधारा (२) का कु राहरु राख्दा बोल्न पर्ने नपर्ने के हो भन्ने प्रश्न समेत उपर हाल विचार गर्न जरुरी ठानिएन
।

• The decision of Durga Das Shrestha to detain and fine the applicant was found to
be given under lack of jurisdiction. Therefore the Supreme Court issued an order of
Habeas Corpus to free the illegally detained applicant.
अधिकारक्षेत्रको अभावमा नै कै द र जरिवानाको सजाय गरेकै देखिनाले त्यस्तो गैरकानूनी आदेशबाट थुनिएका बन्दीलाई मुक्त गरी
दिनुपर्ने ठहर्नाले निवेदकलाई मुक्त गरी दिनु भनी बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश जारी गरिएको छ ।
 Established principles with special reference to
procedural law
• A single judgment can be made if the accusation is same, question to be solved is same and
the date of hearing of such cases which were registered in different date of different
applicants.
निवेदकहरुको निवेदन भिन्दा भिन्दै मितिमा दर्ता भएको भए तापनि सबै निवेदकहरु र निवेदिका उपर एउटै किसिमको आरोप लगाई कारवाई चलाएको
र सबैको एउटै किसिमको माग देखिएको, समाधान गर्नुपर्ने प्रश्नहरु पनि एकै भई सबैको एकै मितिमा सुनवाई भएकोले यसै आदेशमा सबै प्रश्नहरुको
विवेचना गरिन्छ ।

• The quasi-judicial decisions should be made with judicial perspective.

जरिवाना कै द गर्ने जसलाई अधिकार छ, निश्चय पनि निजको निर्णय न्यायिक वा अर्धन्यायिक हुन्छ । अधिकारहरु प्रयोग गर्दा न्यायिक प्रक्रिया
अपनाउनु पर्दछ । न्यायाधीशले गरेको निर्णयलाई न्यायिक निर्णय प्रशासकीय अधिकारीको न्यायिक निर्णयलाई अर्धन्यायिक र प्रशासकीय अधिकारीले
प्रशासन सम्बन्धी गरेको निर्णय (जसमा तजविजको मात्रा बढी हुन्छ) लाई प्रशासकीय निर्णय भनिन्छ ।
• The order of Certiorari, Mandamus and Habeas Corpus are made respectively,
i, Against judicial, quasi-judicial authority
ii, Against administrative authority
iii, Against unauthorized and illegal detention
नेपालको संविधानको धारा ७१– उत्प्रेषणको आदेश कु नै न्यायिक अर्धन्यायिक अधिकारीको विरुद्ध जारी हुन्छ । परमादेश प्रशासकीय अधिकारीको
विरुद्ध जारी हुन्छ । तर बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरण हरेक किसिमको अनधिकृ त र गैरकानूनी थुनामा राख्नेको विरुद्धमा जारी हुन्छ । यसले न्यायिक र प्रशासकीय
भेदभाव राख्दैन।
अन्य रिटमा खास परी परमादेशमा आदेश जारी गर्ने नगर्ने अदालतको तजविजमा रहने–बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश जारी गर्न अदालतको तजविज
नभई उक्त आदेश जारी हुनुपर्ने ठिक ठिक आधारहरु स्थापित भएमा–हकै जस्तो गरी उक्त आदेश जारी गर्नैपर्ने ।

• Preamble is essential part of an act but it doesn’t control the main section. If the main section
is unclear and ambiguous, then only the preamble is taken into consideration. It can be
amended.
प्रस्तावना ऐनको अभिन्न भाग–यसले ऐनको मूल दफालाई नियन्त्रण नगर्ने–मूल दफा अस्पष्ट र दुई अर्थ लाग्ने भएमा–यसको सहारा लिने–विधायिकाको
मनसाय बुझ्न यसलाई हेर्ने–यो संशोधन हुन सक्ने ।
• In democratic system, freedom is more prevalent then in totalitarianism, so in
democratic panchayat , any work that is not prohibited by law can be done.
प्रजातान्त्रिक व्यवस्थामा अधिनायकवादमा भन्दा स्वतन्त्रताको मात्रा बढी हुने कारण पञ्चायत प्रजातन्त्रमा कानूनले गर्न नहुने
भनी मनाही नगरेमा–गर्न हुने ।

• As the principle of Natural Justice is one cannot be judge in his/her own case,
the government also cannot be judge in its own case.
प्राकृ तिक न्यायको मुलभूत सिद्धान्त–व्यक्ति आफ्नो बिषयमा आफैं न्यायाधीश हुन नसके जस्तै सरकार पनि आफ्नो बिषयमा
आफैं न्यायाधीश हुन नसक्ने ।

• The Constitution provides that if one kind of writ is claimed then the SC can
give an order for any other writ which it seems is more applicable.
पालको संविधानको धारा ७१–एक प्रकारको रिटको माग गरेमा–उपयुक्त देखिएमा अन्य रिट वा आदेश सर्वोच्च अदालतबाट जारी
गर्नसक्ने ।
• According to Article 11, Sub-Article(1), of the constitution, No person shall be
deprived of his/her life or personal liberty save in accordance with both
substantive and procedural law.
नेपालको संविधानको धारा ११ (१)–कसैको ज्यान वा व्यक्तिगत स्वतन्त्रता अपहरण गर्न सारवान (Substantive) ऐन र
कार्यविधि (Procedure) सम्बन्धी ऐन दुवैको अक्षरसः पालन गरी बहुत सर्तकता र होसियारी साथ हेर्न पर्ने

• If anyone claim for the order of Habeas Corpus, and if it is seen abduct from
the explanations of some questions among the existing questions, then the
court can give order of Habeas Corpus without explanations of other
remaining questions
बन्दी–प्रत्यक्षीकरणको आदेश जारी गर्न माग गरेमा–उपस्थित प्रश्नहरु मध्ये के हीको विवेचनाबाटै गैरकानूनी थुनामा परेको
देखिएमा–बाँकी अन्य प्रश्नहरुको विवेचना नगरिकनै उक्त आदेश जारी गर्न मिल्ने ।.
Thank you