The Supreme Court has issued a directive order to the Madhesh province government to formulate rules disqualifying individuals facing corruption charges or convicted of corruption from being appointed as advisors.
The Supreme Court issued the order in response to a writ petition filed against the appointment of Jibanath Chaudhary as an advisor by Ram Saroj Yadav, then minister for physical infrastructure development of Madhesh province. Chaudhary was previously convicted in a corruption case by the Special Court.
The full text of the order, passed on January 18 by a bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Tek Prasad Dhungana, has now been made public.
The Supreme Court has directed that rules covering the procedures, qualifications, benefits, terms of service, and code of conduct for advisor appointments be implemented within six months of receiving the order.
"In such rules, among other things, a clear provision must be included stating that individuals whose corruption cases are sub-judice or who have been convicted of corruption offenses shall be deemed ineligible for appointment to the post of advisor," the Supreme Court directed the Office of the Chief Minister of Madhesh province.
Jibanath Chaudhary was appointed by then-minister Ram Saroj Yadav as his advisor on July 4, 2021.
In a written response sought by the Supreme Court after the petition was filed, Yadav argued that although the Special Court had convicted Chaudhary, an appeal against that verdict was sub-judice in the Supreme Court, and the Prevention of Corruption Act did not legally bar him from being appointed as an advisor.
The Supreme Court, however, characterized his response as extremely narrow-minded. The court noted in its order that placing such individuals within the governance structure risks causing the public to view the entire system as tainted and corrupt.
"One cannot travel on the highway of constitutional morality by accepting elements of corruption that simply cannot survive around the principles of good governance. If individuals who have been penalized by the court of first instance for corruption offenses and whose cases are sub-judice under appeal are given a place in the mainstream of the governance structure under the pretext that formal legal provisions do not explicitly forbid their appointment as advisors, there remains a risk that the general public will perceive and experience the entire structure as tainted and corrupt."
The Special Court had sentenced Chaudhary to four months in prison and fined him Rs 300,000 for corruption. Chaudhary appealed against the decision in the Supreme Court. After a division bench delivered a split opinion on his case, an order was passed to refer it to a full bench. The case has not yet been presented before the full bench.
Following Chaudhary’s appointment as advisor by the minister, Babulal Mandal had filed a petition seeking an interim order to stop Chaudhary from functioning as an advisor and to halt any payments to him or any institution he was involved with.
The Supreme Court quashed the writ petition stating that the Cabinet had already been reshuffled and Chaudhary no longer held the position of advisor.
However, the bench issued a directive order, stating that the petition raised very important questions regarding good governance and that the questions would remain relevant in future as well for constitutional development and the promotion of good governance.
