The President Must Act to Restore Constitutional Order

 I am really surprised to know that how the Art 96 and Art  88 of the Interim  constitution are being misinterpreted and how the ruling  of the court and its meaning is being distorted  by  the government, the political parties, the media and the  intellectuals regarding the presentation of the budget.  The participation of constitutional experts  and  media  in the debate  is also disturbing and it suggests that they are knee deep in the game of make believe rather than establishing the truth and taking the side of the truth.    Art 96 (A) (1) n (2)  of the Interim constitution does not vest any authority in the cabinet  to bring a partial budget outside the locus of the  parliament. Like wise, Art 88 on ordinance does not vest any authority in the President to issue even a partial budget  through an ordinance. Art 88 clearly stipulates that except when the legislature –parliament is in session, the President may promulgate an ordinance , on the recommendation of the cabinet if it deems necessary ,  if he/ she  is satisfied ,  and  if it is not contrary to the provisions set in the constitution.  As Art 96 clearly stipulates that a partial budget, which is merely an extended version of the budget of the previous fiscal year, can be presented by the government in the parliament in special circumstances, the  issuance of a partial budget through ordinance by the President would be against the letter and spirit of the constitution and would be glaringly  unconstitutional.

Use of Art 88  by the President  to bring the budget would produce dangerous results for constitutional and democratic politics as well. The act of the President would push the country in a whirling vortex of undemocratic, unrepresentative, unconstitutional and non transparent governance and the exit, seemingly would not be easy. It would be so because  the constitution is silent about the time period within which the ordinance should be endorsed by a parliament.  The article 88 (2) (c )  merely states that the ordinance must  be endorsed within 60 days from the commencement of the session of the parliament or cease to be effective then after.  As there is no parliament functioning and no one is certain when would the  parliament sit, the practice of bringing budget through ordinance would continue.  The cost would be unimaginable in many ways.

Thus the political way out to avoid the crisis is activation of the legislature parliament by government through the authority vested in Art 158 to  resolve the  difficulties in the implementation of the constitution. If the cabinet would not  agree to bring any such recommendation to the President in time ,then  the  President, the protector of the constitution under article 36 (a) (3), should  use the authority vested in him and  write to the speaker to commence the session of the CA and the parliament. The budget should be presented in the Parliament only. The CA and Parliament have neither died their natural death nor dissolved as the last notices of the speaker issued on May 26 for the commencement of the session of  the CA and parliament are still hanging around. Constitutionally, legally and practically speaking, the representative institutions are merely not active and are in need of being activated.  

Any act by the President in this regard on the basis of the doctrine of necessity would be the final death nail for the interim constitution.