Friday, March 24 2006 15:22 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

Kathmandu: In two significant decisions, Nepal's Supreme Court today (Mar 24 2006) upheld a ban on the Maoists, paving the way for the monarchy to continue branding them as "terrorists" and gave credence to a controversial provision in an anti-terrorism law that allowed police to detain suspects for a year without trial.

A full Bench of the apex court comprising Justice Khil Raj Regmi, Justice Badri Kumar Basnet and Justice Gauri Dhakal quashed a petition by a Maoist sympathizer asking the court to withdraw the tag and questioning the constitutionality of the government decision (to ban the rebel outfit).

The Court said no sufficient evidence was produced to substantiate that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) was a political party with constitutional recognition, officials here said.

The previous government had labeled the Maoists as terrorists and banned the outfit's activities in August 2003.

Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Ordinance

In a separate verdict, the Supreme Court also ruled that the controversial provision in the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance, 2005, popularly known as TADO which allows security forces to detain any person suspected of terrorist activity for one year, is in keeping with the present Constitution.

This gives sweeping power to security forces to grill political activists on the basis of suspicion and without any trial. The ordinance issued by King Gyanendra last year allowing the state to detain any suspect for a year without trial.

The apex Court's Bench, in a majority verdict, quashed a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of the provision on the ground that it was against human rights.

Justice Khil Raj Sharma and Justice Gauri Dhakal in the decision said, the provision is in tune with the Constitution, while Justice Bal Ram KC writing a dissenting opinion, said the provision contravenes the Constitution.

Justice KC clarifying the matter said, that if the provision were not declared contradictory to the Constitution, the state could both prosecute and keep citizens in preventive detention at the same time.

The ordinance has drawn criticism from national and international human rights watch groups.