The Supreme Court (SC) has explained that one cannot be deemed to have committed a criminal offense involving moral turpitude merely after being ruled guilty of corruption.
The Apex Court has stated so in the the full text of its verdict that revoked the suspension of Nepali Congress (NC) lawmaker Tek Bahadur Gurung.
A joint bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Sharma and Binod Sharma hearing the petition filed by Gurung, who was elected to the House of Representatives (HoR) from Manang, had issued the writ as demanded by the petitioner on March 29.
The 23-page full text of that verdict has explained criminal offense involving moral turpitude and stated that Gurung did not commit one.
Gurung was suspended on December 27, 2022 pointing that the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) had lodged a corruption case against him at the Special Court.
The Special Court had found nine persons including Gurung guilty in the corruption case on February 28, 2023, but did not jail him and just fined him. Gurung was found guilty of corruption by charging a lower rate of rent while he was director of the Fun Park at Bhrikuti Mandap.
Gurung had then lodged the writ petition at the SC on March 5, 2023, demanding revocation of the suspension arguing that he was not jailed in the case and pointing at other discrepancies in the process of suspension.
The full text of the SC verdict has first explained act of moral turpitude and stated that it should be determined on the basis of offense, extent of its negative impact on the society, and involvement of the individual in that offense.
It has interpreted that criminal offense can be deemed to involve moral turpitude only in certain conditions. The first being if the law itself mentions that the offense involves moral turpitude.
The other is when the legal provisions require demanding a verdict that rules the defendant to have committed an offense involving moral turpitude at the time of lodging the case brought by the state. The full text states that the individual is deemed to have committed offense involving moral turpitude if the court issues verdict as per the demand made while lodging the case.
The SC has stated that the court should decide whether being ruled guilty of any offense leads to ineligibility for government or public positions if the law itself does not mention that the offense involves moral turpitude and when no demands seeking the defendant be ruled to have committed an offense involving moral turpitude have been made at the time of lodging the case.
The full text has pointed that those three conditions do not apply in Gurung’s case. It has also added that Gurung cannot be deemed to have committed an offense involving moral turpitude as he was ruled to be an accomplice by the Special Court in its verdict and was only fined half of the fine levied on the main accused.
The full text has also reasoned that Gurung cannot be disqualified for being found guilty under any federal law. It has pointed that the federal law determining dis/qualification for House of Representatives (HoR) member is the HoR Member Election Act and the relevant disqualification clause of the Act states that the verdict finding the individual guilty should be final. It rules that the Special Court verdict ruling Gurung to be guilty cannot be deemed final as the appeal against the verdict is sub judice in a higher court.
It has also stated that the provision of automatic disqualification of someone in public position on lodging of a corruption case does not apply on Gurung as he was not in any public position when the corruption case was filed against him.
It has also reasoned that Gurung’s suspension should be lifted because his suspension was not in accordance to the law.
The Federal Parliament Secretariat issuing a notice on December 27, 2022, had stated that Gurung was suspended as the corruption case lodged against him by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) was sub judice at the Special Court. The House had not taken any decision on Gurung’s suspension.
The Secretariat had said that he was suspended as per the legal provision of automatic suspension until acquittal from the corruption case.
The full text has pointed that general secretary of the Federal Parliament Secretariat has not been given rights to suspend lawmakers by any law and called the suspension unlawful.
Gurung’s suspension was lifted on April 24 after the SC informed the Federal Parliament Secretariat about its verdict to revoke his suspension.
