Justice and Compensation for Nepalese Killed in US !

Case Study 1: Shooting at night club leads to 3.5 million dollar verdict[i]. An OH law firm represented the mother of an 18 year old young man who was shot and killed at a night club. He was standing watching a fight take place, when an unknown assailant discharged a firearm, killing our client’s son. A claim was brought against the night club for improper security, resulting in a 3.5 million dollar judgment.

Case Study 2[ii]: Members of greater Boston’s Nepali community, which numbers about 6,000 to 7,000, are calling for justice and trying to raise money to cover funeral expenses after one of their own was gunned down behind the counter of a Tedeschi’s store. The president and C.E.O. of Tedeschi’s stores put out a statement saying he’s is deeply saddened by the loss of SURENDRA DANGOL to a senseless act of violence.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Homicide Unit at 617-343-4470. Individuals wishing to provide information anonymously may do so by calling the CrimeStoppers Hotline at 1-800-494-TIPS or texting ‘TIPS’ to CRIME (27463).

Case Study 3[iii]: Missouri City Police have arrested a 17-year old Raymond Whitcher in the case of Ashok Bhattarai’s murder. Full story here. A Nepali student who was working his shift at a convenience store in Missouri City, Texas, was shot with a rifle and killed during a robbery on Sept. 28.

Case Study 4: The Council on American-Islamic Relations[iv] (CAIR) called on the FBI to investigate a possible bias motive for the murder of a Texas convenience store owner, allegedly shot to death by a suspected white supremacist. Surveillance video showed that the store owner, 50-year-old Naushad Virani, was shot during a robbery Friday night in Liberty County, Texas. Local authorities are investigating whether the murder was a hate crime. When arrested, the alleged killer told deputies: When I saw that all of you were white I decided to give up and not fight. ” He also reportedly admitted that he shot the store owner. The suspect in the case has a lengthy criminal record and is believed to be a member of a white supremacist group. He has many tattoos, including a Nazi SS symbol on the right side of his neck. A CAIR representative in Texas is in touch with the family of the victim.

ANY SIMILARITIES ON THE ABOVE FOUR CASES?

List of Incidents leading to death of Nepalese in the US

City and State	Venue	Victim	Incident	Status
Boston, MA	Convenience Store	Surendra Dangol, 40	December 27, 2009	Fatally shot dead. Criminal at large
Missouri City, TX	First Stop Food Store	Ashok Bhattarai, 21	September 28, 2008	Fatally shot dead. 17-year-old Raymond Whitcher for the murder.
Bedford, TX	D&S Food Store in Bedford.	Gaurab Rajbanshi, 28	June 11, 2007	Theodis Dodson pleaded guilty to capital murder and received a life sentence. Jeff Dodson is being tried for the death penalty for killing. Fredrick Hughes was in the get-a-way car and was found not guilty.
East Fort Worth, TX	TL Food Store	Jas Bahadur Rai, 48	January 7, 2009	Leonard Junior Coulter, 46, was arrested
Baltimore, MD	Texaco gas station	Himank Karki, 21	August 27, 2007	Fatally shot dead. Criminal at large
TX	Leon County,	Amrit Dhital, 21	January 7, 2006	Car Accident not at fault
TX	Leon County,	Puskar Acharya, 21	January 7, 2006	Car Accident not at fault
TX	Leon County,	Prahlad Gurung, 22	January 7, 2006	Car Accident not at fault
TX	Leon County,	Subash Gurung, 20	January 7, 2006	Car Accident not at fault
MN	Southern Minnesota highway.	Utsav Basnet, 19	January 4, 2006	Car Accident-Not at fault
MN	Southern Minnesota highway.	Bedija Kharel, 20	January 4, 2006	Car Accident-Not at fault
MN	Southern Minnesota highway.	Nishma Timilsina, 21	January 4, 2006	Car Accident-Not at fault

Dangers of Death and Serious Injury while working at the Retail Stores and gas Stations:

Accidents that are caused by defective or dangerous property, either inside or outside a building, are called “premises liability” accidents. Here are the general guidelines for premises liability accidents on legal responsibilities. Accidents that are caused by defective or dangerous property, either inside or outside a building, are called “premises liability” accidents. These accidents can take place at commercial buildings (stores or offices), residences (private homes or rentals), or on public property (parks, streets, or public transportation).[v]

The Basic Liability Rules for Premises Accidents

There are two basic rules to determine who is responsible for a premises accident.

Rule One: The Owner Must Keep the Property Safe

The owner or occupier of property has a legal duty to anyone who enters the property — as a tenant, a shopper, or a personal or business visitor — not to subject that person to an unreasonable risk of injury because of the design, construction, or condition of the property. The reason for this rule is simple: The owner has control over the safety of the premises and the visitor does not. For example, if the owner of an apartment building does not fix a broken piece of tile in the entrance hall, he or she is responsible if a visitor trips on that tile and is injured.

Rule Two: The Visitor Must Use the Property Normally

The second rule of premises liability applies to the conduct of the injured person. If a person gets injured while acting in an unexpected, unauthorized, or dangerously careless way, the property owner or occupier is not responsible. For example, if a guest swings down the stairs on the handrail, the handrail breaks, and the guest is injured, the owner will not be held responsible.

What about Injured Employees?

These rules extend to employees who are injured on their employer’s property; however, employees must file a worker’s compensation claim rather than a private injury claim.

Commercial Property

If you are injured at a store, office, or other business, whether the owner or occupier is legally responsible for your accident is usually determined by where the accident occurred and what the lease or other business contract says about such liability. You should notify the business about your accident and injuries. The business’s insurance company will either handle your claim itself or pass the matter on to the building owner’s insurance company.

A store owner is responsible for the safety of staff inside the store as well as the safety of all those outside in the parking lot. If they fail to keep their premises safe, then they are considered liable for any harm caused be their negligence. Retail store negligence cases can include accidents that occur on the premises, attacks and assaults that occur on the premises, and any harm that occurs as a result of an illegal sale. A retail store negligence attorney must be contacted as soon as possible.

According to the law, property owners are obligated to provide safe, secure and properly maintained premises. Regardless of how or why a person enters a property, property owners may be held liable if injury occurs. Many factors can impact the outcome of a premises liability case. Was the injured party (entrant) an invitee, licensee, or trespasser? Did the injury result from a natural or artificial condition of the premises? Was the property satisfactorily maintained? Was the facility inadequately secured?

Generally, the law provides for compensation of preventable accidents. Recompense may include loss of income, medical bills, as well as consideration for pain and suffering. Many businesses and homeowners carry premises liability insurance; however insufficient insurance leaves the property owner personally responsible for additional monies. If offered an insurance settlement, it is wise to consult with premises liability attorneys who will evaluate the case and ensure that the client’s interests are protected.

Late Surendra Dangol and Justice

Massachusetts has just changed its premises liability law with regard to self-service retailers.  On April 17, 2007, Massachusetts’ highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, decided Sheehan v. Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc., which lightens plaintiff’s burden of proof in slip and fall cases. In Sheehan, the plaintiff slipped on a grape inside a supermarket sustaining significant injuries that required a month of hospitalization.  In reversing a decision for the defendant, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted a new approach to premises liability.

Previously, Massachusetts followed the traditional approach for premises liability cases.  That is, a store owner simply had to “maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.”  Thus, a store owner could only be held liable for an injury if the owner had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the dangerous condition and had sufficient time to fix the condition. In deciding to forego the traditional approach in favor of a “mode of operation approach,” the Court stated that the switch was necessitated due to the change in individualized clerk-assisted retail stores to self-service retailers.  Due to the prominence of self-service businesses, the Court stated that focus should be on the reasonable foreseeability of a patron’s carelessness.  Consequently, where a store’s chosen mode of operation makes it reasonably foreseeable that a dangerous condition will occur, a store owner may be held liable for injuries if the plaintiff proves that the store owner failed to take reasonable precautions necessary to protect him or her from the foreseeable dangerous condition.

Although the plaintiff no longer needs to show that a store owner had notice of the dangerous condition, in order to prove a claim the plaintiff must do the following:

(1) Show the injury was attributable to a reasonably foreseeable dangerous condition on the owner’s premises that is related to the owner’s self-service mode of operation;

(2) Show the owner failed to take reasonable measures, commensurate with the risk involved, to prevent the injury; and

(3) Persuade a jury that the owner acted unreasonably.  Based on the Sheehan decision, all store owners, especially those which allow patrons to obtain their own goods, must take significant precautions to protect the safety of their patrons[1].

Who is responsible then?

Generally, a store owner is responsible for the safety of staff inside the store as well as the safety of all those outside in the parking lot. If they fail to keep their premises safe, then they are considered liable for any harm caused be their negligence. Retail store negligence cases can include accidents that occur on the premises, attacks and assaults that occur on the premises, and any harm that occurs as a result of an illegal sale. A retail store negligence attorney must be contacted as soon as possible.

A quick Google for Personal Injury Lawyers (retail store negligence) in Boston, MA shows the following results:

• http://www.morrisonmahoney.com
• http://www.bostoninjurylawfirm.com
• http://www.parkerscheer.com

Generally, an initial consultation with these law firms is free. It is possible that the lawyer may agree to work on a contingent basis e.g. 1/3 of the amount recovered as the fee. If one has suffered a serious injury in a premises liability accident, don’t assume there isn’t anything you can do about it. The property owner’s insurance company won’t stand up and fight for your financial interests[vi].

Sadly, Nepali lawyers are mostly based in New York, who cannot practice a MA law with NY License. This raises the concern of legal representation and lawyers from our community in all states resided by Nepalese. ANLUS is ALWAYS willing to assist the family and community to get connected with an attorney for appropriate legal action ASAP. Please communicate regarding this matter at anlusnepal@gmail.com OR leave a message at www.anlus.org

Disclaimer: Information and News article excerpts used in this article are not intent to violate IP laws but a mere attempt of dissemination for public interest.

---

[1] http://gracegarcia.typepad.com/massachusettslitigation/premises_liability/

---

[i] http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Custom/custom36.asp

[ii] http://wbztv.com/local/jamaica.plain.shooting.2.1394258.html

[iii] http://www.sajaforum.org/2008/09/crime-nepali-st.html

[iv] http://thesop.org/law/2009/12/29/white-supremacist-allegedly-shot-convenience-store-owner

[v] http://articles.directorym.com/Premises_Liability_Accidents_Massachusetts-r1141105-Massachusetts.html

[vi] http://www.kaplanbond.com/CM/PersonalInjury/Premises-Liability.asp

Muluki Ain Translations

(As on http://www.asianlii.org/np/legis/laws/toc-M.html)

* MULUKI AIN REGARDING ADOPTED SON, CHAPTER 15
* MULUKI AIN REGARDING HUMAN TRAFFICKING, CHAPTER 11
* MULUKI AIN REGARDING HUSBAND AND WIFE, CHAPTER 12
* MULUKI AIN REGARDING PARTITION OF PROPERTY, CHAPTER 13
* MULUKI AIN REGARDING RAPE, CHAPTER 14
* MULUKI AIN REGARDING WOMEN’S SHARE OF PROPERTY, CHAPTER 14

जनादेशको विस्तार हुन सक्दैन – भीमार्जुन आचार्य

काठमाडौ, २०६६ पुस ९ – अन्तरिम संविधानले संविधानसभाको कार्यकाल पहिलो बैठक बसेको मितिले दुई वर्षको निर्धारण गरेको छ । संविधानको सिद्धान्त र शास्त्रलाई हेर्दा निश्चित समयावधिको जनादेश जनताले आफ्ना प्रतिनिधिलाई प्रदान गरेको हुन्छ । त्यस्तो जनादेश विस्तार हुन सक्दैन भन्ने संवैधानिक मान्यता हो । त्यो मान्यताबाट हेर्दा दुई वर्षको समयावधि संविधानसभाका लागि अपरिवर्तनीय हुन्छ । त्यसमा एउटामात्र अपवाद छ । संविधान लेख्ने क्रममै मुलुकमा संकटकालको घोषणा भएको अवस्थामा संविधानसभाले आफ्नो कार्यकाल ६ महिनासम्म बढाउन सक्छ । संकटकालका कारण संविधान लेखनमा बाधा पुगेमा यसो गर्न सकिन्छ । तर संविधान लेख्नकै लागि संकटकाल लगाउन सकिने प्रावधान संविधानमा छैन ।

अन्तरिम संविधानको धारा १ सय ४३ मा संकटकालसम्बन्धी व्यवस्था छ । संकटकालीन अधिकार प्रयोग गर्नका लागि तीनवटा व्यवस्थाहरू विद्यमान रहेको हुनुपर्छ । नेपाल राज्यको सार्वभौमसत्तामा संकट आएको हुनुपर्छ । दोस्रो, नेपाल राज्यको अखण्डताको सुरक्षामा खतरा आएको हुनुपर्छ र तेस्रोचाहिँ कुनै भूभागको सुरक्षामा खतरा आएको हुनुपर्छ । यो तीन अवस्थामध्ये कुनै एक अवस्था विद्यमान भयो भने संकटकालीन अधिकारको प्रयोग गर्न सकिन्छ । यी तीन अवस्था विद्यमान हुनका लागि पनि चार कारणहरू संविधानले उल्लेख गरेको छ । युद्ध, बाह्य आक्रमण, सशस्त्र विद्रोह र चरम आर्थिक विशृङखलताका कारणले ती अवस्थाको सिर्जना भएको हुनुपर्छ ।

संविधानसभाले हालसम्म गरेको कामको मूल्याङ्कन गर्दाखेरि ८ विषयत समितिले आफ्नो प्रारम्भिक अवधारणा तयार गरेका छन् । दुईवटा विषयगत समिति र संवैधानिक समितिले प्रारम्भिक अवधारणा निर्माणका काम सम्पन्न गरेको देखिँदैन । यो दृष्टिकोणले हेर्दा संविधान तोकिएको समयमा बन्दैन कि भन्ने अवस्था देखिन्छ । अर्को भनेको राजनीतिक र नियतका कारण हुन् । कतिपय समूहलाई समयमा संविधान नलेखेमा के फरक पर्छ र भन्ने परेको हुनसक्छ ।

दुई-तीनवटा कारण संविधान निर्माण नहुनुमा बलियो जिम्मेवार भएका छन् । राजनीतिक सहमतिको बिग्रँदो अवस्थाले पनि संविधान निर्माणमा बाधा गरिरहेको छ । माओवादीले एकतर्फी रूपमा गरिरहेको संघीय गणराज्यका इकाइहरूको घोषणाले पनि संविधान निर्माणमा बाधा गरिरहेको छ । तेस्रो, संघात्मक राज्यको व्यवस्थापन र त्यसको अन्तरवस्तुमा रहेका विवाद पनि संविधान निर्माणका चुनौतीका रूपमा आएका छन् । बाह्य देश र स्वार्थ समूहको कारण पनि यसमा केही न केही समस्या आएका छन् ।

समयका कारण बाँकी अवधिमा संविधान लेख्न नसकिने अवस्था देखिँदैन । दुई वर्षको अवधिमा संविधान निर्माण भएका धेरै उदाहरणहरू छन् । दक्षिण अपि|mकाको अन्तरिम संविधानमा तोकिएको दुई वर्षको अवधिमा नै -सन् १९९४-९६) संविधान बनेको थियो । त्यसैले हामीकहाँ पनि समयमा संविधान लेख्न सकिँदैन भन्ने होइन । यसमा दलहरू, संविधानसभा र राज्यका अन्य निकाय वा पदाधिकारी कति जिम्मेवार र इमानदार बन्छन् भन्ने हो । संविधानसभाले समयमा संविधान लेख्न सकेन भने यसको वैधतामाथि प्रश्न उठ्नेछ । एकथरी विचार आएजस्तो संविधानसभाले संविधान लेखेन भने राज्यका सबै निकायहरू भंग हुने, राष्ट्रपतिमा सबै अधिकार निहित हुने भन्ने खालको तर्कलाई मान्न सकिँदैन । त्यस खालको प्रावधान संविधानमा छैन ।

संविधानसभाको कार्यकाल दुई वर्षको किटानी व्यवस्था भएको हुनाले जनादेशको विस्तार हुन सक्दैन भन्ने सैद्धान्तिक मान्यता हो । संविधान नलेखिएको अवस्थामा स्वाभाविक संवैधानिक र राजनीतिक संकट उत्पन्न हुनेछ । मुलुकका सबै निकाय भंग हुने परिकल्पना गर्न सकिँदैन ।

संवैधानिक संकट ल्याएर संविधानसभा नै विघटन गर्न खोजियो भने त्यससँग जोडिएका अन्य निकायहरूको वैधतामा प्रश्न आउँछ । नेपाल एउटा जटिल मोडमा छ । त्यसैले जनादेश र संविधानको म्यान्डेटलाई हामी इमानदारीका साथ पालना गर्न चाहन्छौं भने तोकिएको समयावधिभित्र संविधान लेख्नुको अरू कुनै विकल्प छैन । यो अन्तिम र अपरिवर्तनीय विकल्प हो भनेर दलहरू अगाडि बढ्नुपर्छ । त्यसो गर्नु सबैका लागि बुद्धिमानी हुनेछ ।

हुन त संविधानसभाको विश्व अभ्यासमा संविधानसभाले आफ्नो कार्यकाल आफंैले बढाएका उदाहरण पनि छन् । जस्तो बोलेभियामा एक वर्षको अवधि नपुगेर अर्को वर्ष थप गरिएको थियो । तर तोकिएको कार्यकालभित्र काम नसकिएर समय थपिएका उदाहरणलाई हेर्नुभयो भने त्यसलाई राम्रो परिणाम दिएको छैन । त्यसैले यो राम्रो अभ्यास होइन । समय थप गरिएका मुलुकमा संविधानसभा नै असफल भएका उदाहरण पनि छन् । बोलेभियामा नै एक वर्षका लागि समय थपिएको -सन् २००६ )मा अहिलेसम्म संविधान बन्नसकेको छैन । दुनियाँका खराब अभ्यासलाई नजिर बनाउन हुँदैन भन्ने हाम्रो आग्रह छ । तोकिएको समयमा संविधान बनाएका देशमा नै संविधानसभाले राम्रो व्यवस्थापन गरेका छन् ।

संविधासभा भंग भएको अवस्थामा राष्ट्रपति सर्वोपरी हुने परिपकल्पना गरिएको छैन । अहिलेको संविधानअनुसार त राष्ट्रपति केवल औपचारिक व्यक्तिमात्र हुन् । उनमा कुनै पनि प्रकारका सक्रिय अधिकार छैनन् । त्यसैले संविधानसभाको विघटन भएमा के हुने भन्ने अन्योल संविधानमा छ, त्यो कुरा साँचो हो । त्यसबाट ठूलो संवैधानिक र राजनीतिक संकट आउँछ । संविधानसभा विघटन भएमा तत्पश्चातको अधिकार कसमा जाने भन्ने व्यवस्था अहिलेको संविधानमा छैन ।

समयसीमा भित्र संविधान पनि लेखिएन भने संविधानसभाले संविधानको पालना नगरेको र धोका दिएको ठहरिन्छ । तर यसबाट यो संविधान नै समाप्त हुने भन्ने हुँदैन । संविधानको जुन धारा प्रयोग हुँदैन, त्यही धारा मात्र निष्त्रिmय हुन्छ । पूरै संविधान नै निष्त्रिmय हुने र मृत हुने भन्ने अवधारणा हुँदैन ।

संविधानसभाको कार्यकाल समाप्त भयो, यो संविधानसभा अन्तर्गतका अन्य निकायहरू विघटन भए भने त्यो अख्तियारी कसले प्रयोग गर्ने भन्ने संविधानमा उल्लेख छैन । त्यो अधिकार राष्ट्रपतिमा जान्छ भन्ने तर्क गर्न सकिँदैन । संविधानसभा विघटन भएको अवस्थामा पनि नयाँ संविधान नआएसम्मका लागि राष्ट्रपति जीवित रहने भएकाले त्यो संस्थाचाहिँ कायम रहन्छ । तर राज्यको कार्यकारी अधिकार प्रयोग कसले गर्ने भन्नेचाहिँ संविधानमा उल्लेख छैन । प्रधानमन्त्री पनि संविधानसभाको

सैद्धान्तिक रूपमा संविधान संशोधन गरेर समयावधि थप्ने भन्ने कुरा मिल्दैन । दुई वर्षको यो अपरिवर्तनीय व्यवस्था हो । अगाडि नै संविधान लेखियो भने विघटन हुनसक्छ । समयावधि पनि सकियो, संकटकालीन अवस्थाले संविधान लेख्न नसकिएको पनि होइन, समयावधि पनि थपिएन भने त यसको समाप्ति भएको तर्क गर्न सकिएला । तर धारा १४८ बमोजिम संविधान संशोधन गरी कार्यकाल तलमाथि गरे भने के हुने भन्ने प्रश्नचाहिँ अनुत्तरित छ । यो भोलि कानुन र अदालती व्याख्याको प्रश्न हुनसक्छ ।

(अधिवक्ता आचार्यसँग राजेन्द्र फुयालले गरेको कुराकानीमा आधारित)

http://www.ekantipur.com/np/news/news-detail.php?news_id=304018

STATUS QUO~ANATOMY OF THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PEACE AGREEMENT

Status Quo ~ Anatomy of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement | State Actors: Seven Parties and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)

In regards to the increasing order of violation and breach of the Peace Pact, questioning its validity and its binding nature.

I have tried to analyze major articles of the 2006 Peace pact which seems to be getting derailed each day due to the acts of its parties, the state and mostly the Maoists. The report shows that the major provisions of the pact have been violated repeatedly, thereby raising a serious issue of its applicability, usages, possible breach and if its deemed null and void?

Information analyzed and used are absolutely dependent on the media monitoring of various national, regional and global media.

All information pertain to the period after signing of the  peace act till December 22, 2009, the third day of the Maoist’s strike in Nepal, which undoubtedly voids the 2006 agreement and related agreements to it such as the 12 pt. agreement, 8 pt. agreement, head of state declarations etc.

B	Breached
Q	Questionable
P	Progress

ARTICLE	PROVISION	STATUS
Preamble	People’s will in favor of democracy, peace and progress	Q
	Commitment to the 12-point agreement[1]	B
	8-point agreement between the Seven Party Alliance and the NCP (Maoists)	B
	25-point code of conduct between Nepal Government and NCP (Maoist)	B
	UN Letters: the letters to the United Nations[2] with similar intentions[3]	B
	Commitment to competitive multiparty democratic system of governance, individual freedom[4], civil liberties, human rights, complete press freedom[5], rule of law as well as democratic values	B
	Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the basic principles and values of international law and human rights,	Q
	Citizens’ rights to participate in the Constituent Assembly elections held in a free, impartial and fearless environment[6]	B
	Democracy, peace, prosperity, eco-social transformation, nation’s freedom, integrity and sovereignty and independence	Q
	Commitment to hold Constituent Assembly elections, a Constituent Assembly,	P
	Ending the armed conflict since 2052	Q/B

READ COMPLETE REPORT HERE

---

[1] The Maoists continuation with their violent acts of killing people, extortion and abducting civilians, bombing offices and mounting small-scale attacks on police posts is clearly a breach of the 12-point understanding. http://newsblaze.com/story/20060303183410nnnn.nb/topstory.html

[2] http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Nepal%20S%202009%20360.pdf

[3] http://www.unmin.org.np/downloads/keydocs/RSG.SC.Briefing.06.11.09.ENG.doc.pdf

[4] At least 27 journalists were killed during the 2 year period, mostly by the Maoists and the state. As the culture of impunity continues to grow and flourish, even identified suspects have not been arrested or brought to justice. Maoists have recently promoted two of those “wanted” in connection with the murder of journalist Birendra Saha in Southern Nepal’s Bara district two years ago, and assigned them the responsibility of the party’s district secretariat. 12/16/2009. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/balkanisation-of-nepal/554687/

[5] http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=5+more+arrested+in+Tika+Bista+case&NewsID=213835

[6] Elections were held on April 10, 2008, but there were a number of attacks and killings of political rivals during the campaign. 5/23/2008. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/a4452a3a132e6b7a13bc6a7c331604e4.htm

The Himalayan Times : CJ vows to make JC transparent – Detail News : Nepal News Portal

The Himalayan Times : CJ vows to make JC transparent – Detail News : Nepal News Portal.

Newly appointed Chief Justice Anup Raj Sharma vowed to make the Judicial Council more effective and take stern action against corrupt judges if found guilty.

“I am hopeful that I would be able to make the Judicial Council (JC) more effective,” Sharma said while speaking in a programme organised by the Judicial Council to welcome him as the chairman of the organisation on Friday in the capital.

Sharma expressed his commitment to make the JC more transparent in his tenure. “The JC should be a transparent institution to gain the public trust,” Sharma opined.

Collection of Acts

Please visit “Acts” page for a collection of acts, rule and regulations from Nepal. There may be repetition to the acts and regulations we already had in the website.

Nepal Law Commission is currently updating acts in both nepali and english languages and the acts/regulations is royalty free/non-copyrighted material i.e. free for personal use.

ANLUS welcomes Yog. P Upadhyay, Ph.D. (BNLA) as a member

ANLUS heartly welcomes Yog. P Upadhyay, Ph.D. (BNLA) as a member pursuant to his desire of affiliation with us.

Y.Upadhyay, Ph.D is not practicing at the moment but is involved in teaching and research in the UK universities, is mainly based at Sheffield Institute for Biotechnological Law and Ethics (SIBLE) which is an interdisciplinary research centre within the school of Law, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. He is constantly working towards getting the Nepalese Law Practice License recognized in the UK.

Biography:

Yog Upadhyay Ph.D, Sheffield Institute for Biotechnological law and Ethics (SIBLE) School of Law, University of Sheffield, Y.Upadhyay@sheffield.ac.uk is working in various issues in relation to law and biotechnology with special focus on legal and moral philosophy. He has worked as a Research Associate, Sheffield Institute for Biotechnological Law and Ethics (SIBLE), School of Law, The University of Sheffield in EU FP6 project “Co-Extra”, investigating Legal, Ethical and regulatory issues on the co-existence of GM and Non-GM food within supply chains in EU ; EU FP6 project “FASTER”, investigating Intellectual property and conflict of laws issues in the trade/use of intellectual property through a network of networks and project PRIVIREAL (EU FP5 project investigating privacy and data protection under EU directive in the beginning of 2004).

He also served as a Post Graduate Tutor, School of Law, The University of Sheffield where he taught Understanding Law I and II (Includes basic teaching on Legal theory, Law of Contract, Equity and Tort) for the first year undergraduate Students through Seminar and colloquia and also delivered some seminars for LL.M intellectual Property (Covering international regime on Intellectual property and its relation to new technology specially TRIPS and its impact on new technology and some ethical considerations in last academic year) in addition to “MA in Biotechnological law and Ethics (MABLE)” through seminars and discussion groups with various other involvement in the MABLE, modules on “healthcare law and ethics”, Law of Contract, Sale of Goods, Company Law, Agency etc. on ACCA and BBS, Representation and Protection of the interest of Least Developed Countries in WTO” with Prof. Marise Cremona and Dr. Laukas A. Mistelis.

He has also been involved in teaching some seminar on “Post Graduate Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration”, served as a Court Member in ICC, International Court of Arbitration and practiced as an associate Advocate at Prof. Dhruba Bar Singh Thapa & Associates, Legal Research Associates and Lohani & Associates. Additionally he was a lecturer of commercial law at Apex College and Chartered Academics International.

He completed Ph.D from, School of Law, University of Sheffield, UK on North-South Conflict on Plant intellectual property Rights, LL.M (Commercial Law) and BL from Tribhuvan University, Nepal.

Some of his scholarly works include Liability under Bio-safety protocol, Business Law: Present and Emerging Trends, ‘Negotiating liability Under Biosafety Protocol’, Biodiversity Management and Food Sovereignty: Implementation Challenges for South Asia (2009), Biodiversity protection in the new constitution of Nepal (2009), Liability and Redress under Article 27 of Bio-safety protocol: Some options., Genomics, Society and Policy, Conflict of laws and Intellectual Property, Sui Generis System for protection of plant : Some options for least developed countries, Nature of WTO Dispute Settlement: Is it judicial?, Arbitration for Farmers,  Right to Die : Moral and Ethical aspects of assisted Suicide, Conflict of laws and policy issues in Intellectual property , Legal regime on Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-Modified Food, Legal Aspect of Creating International Financial Services Centre in Nepal, Judicial Discretion in Nepal: Principle and Practice, Dispute Settlement Mechanism of WTO and Least Developed Countries, Arbitration in Nepal,  Issues of Liability under Biosafety protocol, Protecting Traditional Knowledge under Multilateral Framework, North-South Conflict in Agriculture Bioethics and Liability and redress issues in the use of GM Crops: European legal regime.

He is affiliated with Nepal Bar Association, Nepal Bar Council, IUCN Commission on Environmental Law and special commission on Indigenous people, Small Claim Arbitration Group, ICC, International Court of Arbitration, Paris France and International Chamber of Commerce, Nepal National Committee.

इमिग्रेशन कानुन पारित गराऊ, आप्रावाशीहरुको अस्तित्व बचाउ –बिनोद रोका

(CIR) विल ११० औं यु एस कंग्रेसमा छलफल भएको थियो। (S1348) यस्ले बिना भिषा अमेरिकामा बसिरहेका २ करोड भन्दा बढी बिदेशीहरुलाई यहा बसोबास गर्न पाउने स्टाटस दिई नागरिकता पाउने सम्मको बाटो दिन्छ। यो बिल US Senate मा मे ९, २००७ मा पेश भएको थिया तर यस्मा शंसोधनका लागि धेरै प्रस्ताबहरु ल्याईयो अनि यस बिललाई अग्राधिकार दिएर मतदानमा ल्याउनका लागि राखिएको प्रस्ताबले सिनेटमा ६० मत प्राप्त गर्न नसक्दा थन्कीएर बस्नु परयो। यो बिल यसभन्दा अगाडी पारित हृन नसकेका ३ वटा बिलहरुको सहमति रुप हो। ती हृन मे २००५ मा प्रस्तावित Mc-Kennedy Bill, Cornyn-Kyl Bill र सिनेटर ,Arlen Specter ले ल्याएको बिल (S2611) हो जृन मे २००६ मा सिनेटबाट पारित भया तर हाउसबाट पास हृन सकेन। सिआइआर बिल अन्तीम चोटी पूर्व राष्ट्र्पति बृसको अनृरोधमा सिनेटमा छलफलका लागि जृन २५ मा लगियो तर प्रस्ताबको पक्षमा ३५ मत र बिपक्षमा ६४ मत परेको हृदा अगाडि बढन सकेन। यस बिलले मृख्यतया निम्न व्यबस्था गरेको छ। १। यो बीलले जेड Z भिषाको व्यबस्था गरेको छ जस अनृसार कानृनले अयोग्य नठहरिएका। अमेरिकामा जनबरी १, २००८ सम्म बिना भीषा बसीरहेका बिदेशीलाई अमेरिकामा Social Security Number दिई बसोबास गर्न दिने र ८ बर्षपछि ग्रीनकार्ड पाउन सक्ने व्यबस्था छ। यस्का लागि बिदेशीहरुले २००० डलर जरिवाना र काम गरेको अवधिको कर सरकारलाई बुझाउनु पर्दछ र ग्रीनकार्ड पाएका मितिले ५ बर्षपछि अमेरिकाको नागरिकता पाउन निवेदन दिन सक्दछन। २। पारिबारको पुनर्मिलन भएका व्यक्तिहरुले पनि आफनो श्रीमान।श्रीमती तथा २० बर्षननाघेका नाबालख छोराछोरीलाई अमेरिकी नागरिकले पाए सरहको सृविधा पाउने छन। हालको व्यवस्था अनृसार ग्रीनकार्ड भएका ब्यक्तिहरुले आफनो श्रीमान।श्रीमती तथा २० बर्षननाघेका नाबालख छोराछोरीलाई अमेरिकामा ल्याई संगै बस्नका लागि देश अनुसार समयसम्म परिवारबाट विछोडीएर बस्नु पर्छ तर अमेरीकि नागरिकहरुले भने तृरुन्तै ल्याउन पाउछन। ३। हाल भै रहेको व्यबस्था अनृसार कामदारहरुले ग्रीनकार्ड पाऊनका लागि अमेरिकी रोजगारदाताले स्पोन्सर गर्नु पर्दछ तर यो बिलले त्यो व्यबस्थालाई हटाएर नम्बरलाई आधार बनाई दक्षतालाई प्राथमिकता दिएको छ। यस्तो व्यबस्था हाल बेलायत, अष्ट्रेलीया, क्यानडा र अन्य कतिपय बिकसित देशहरुमा रहेको पाईन्छ। ४। गेष्र्टवर्करको प्राबधान। यो प्रावधान अनृसार अमेरिकामा विदेशीहरुलाई एक पटकमा २ बर्षम्मका लागि काम गर्न पाउने भिषा दिइन्छ जसलाई Y वाई भीषा भनिन्छ। २ बर्षकाम गरिसकेपछि कामदार आफनो देशमा फर्किएर १ बर्षपछि पुन अर्को पटक अमेरिकामा काम गर्न आउन सक्दछ। ५।ड्रीमएक्ट, यो प्राबधान अनृसार भिषाविना अमेरिकामा बसीरहेका विदेशीहरुका नाबालख सन्तानहरु जो अमेरिकाबाट हाईस्कृलसम्मको शिक्षा प्राप्त गरि कलेज जान लागेका छन वा अमेरिकी सेनामा सेवा गर्छन, तीनीहरुलाई अमेरिकामा बस्ने अनुमति दिन्छ। ६।अमेरिका र मेक्सीकोको बोर्डरलाई अझ सृरक्षित पार्न २०,००० बोर्डर पेट्रोल एजेन्टको व्यबस्था गरी र ३७० माईल पर्खालको निर्माण गर्नेछ। यो बिल लाई फेरी राष्ट्र्पति बाराक ओबामाले २०१० मा पारित गराउने प्रतिबद्धता व्यक्त गर्नुभएको छ। तर पुरातन बिचार भएका सिनेटर र हाऊसका सदस्यहरुले यो बिलको बिरोध गरिहेका छन बिदेशीहरुलाई यस्तो सृबिधा दिइनृ हृन्न भनेर तर अर्कोतफै स्वयम राष्ट्र्पति एवं लिवरल बिचार राख्ने सदस्यहरुले भने आप्रबासीहरुको महत्व अमेरिकाको चौतर्फी बिकाशको लागि .अपरिहार्य रहेको हृदा यो बिल चाडो पास हृनृ पर्दछ भनि लागि रहनृ भएको छ। यो बिलको बिपक्षमा रहेका व्यक्तिहरुले भने आफ्ना प्रतिनिधिहरुलाई फोन र इमेल, लेख तथा भेटघाट गरेर यो बिल पारित भएमा अमेरिकी नागरिकहरुले काम पाउदैनन, सरकारी खर्च बढछ जस्ता तर्क दिईरहेका छन जबकि अधिकांश विदेशीहरुले प्राय अमेरिकी नागरिकहरुले नगर्ने कामहरु गरिहेका छन भने शिक्षितहरुले गर्ने काम यँहाका दक्ष व्यक्तिहरुले गर्न नभ्याएका काम हृन जुन याँहाको लागि अति आवस्यक रहेको छ। त्यस्तै विदेशीहरुले तिर्ने गरेको कर उनीहरुले पाएको सुविधा भन्दा बढी रहेको आंकडाहरुले देखाउने गरेको पाईन्छ। अनि आकडाले के पनि देखाउँछ भने कागजी प्रमाण बेगर अमेरिकामा बसोबास गरि रहेका बिदेशीहरुलाई हटाउने हो भने लगभग २८ लाख कामहरु खाली हृन्छन र यहाको जिडिपि २४५ बिलियन घटदछ। त्यस्तै एबिसीले भरखरै गरेको र्सर्बेक्षणले के देखाउछ भने ७१ प्रतिशत अमेरिकी मतदाताहरु बिना कागज अमेरिकामा बसोबास गरिरहेका बिदेशीहरुलाई यहा बसोबास गर्न पाउने अधिकार दिईन पर्दछ भन्ने मान्यता राख्छदन। तर र्समर्थनमा यसरी आफनो आवाज पुरयाउने काम त्यती जोडले भैरहेको छैन। यो देश प्रजातान्त्रिक मान्यतामा विश्वास राख्ने भएको हृनाले जस्को पक्षमा बढी आवाज वा भोट पर्छ उसैले परिणाम पाउन सक्दछ। त्यर्सथ २ करोड भन्दा बढी आप्रावासीहरुको आधकार प्राप्तीका लागि हाम्रो पनि कर्तव्य हृन्छ कि आ आफना राज्यका प्रतिनिधिहरुलाई फोन र इमेल वा भेटेर बिलको र्समर्थनमा आवाज पृर्याउनृ। सबै प्रतिनिधिहरुलाई २०२ २२४ ३१२१ मा फोन गरेर आफनो आवाज पुरयाउन सकिन्छ। तपाईले आफनो आवाज पृरयाउन स्टाटस नभनि आफनो र बसोबास गरिहेको राज्यको नाम मात्र खृलाउनृ सक्नृहृन्छ।

लेखक एटनी एट ल, न्यृर्योकमा बस्दै आएका छन् ।

http://www.janapukar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9738&Itemid=113

Empowered District Courts’ to take up habeas corpus petitions

BIMAL GAUTAM KATHMANDU, Dec 12: In a bid to decentralize power in the judiciary and enhance rural people´s access to justice, the Law and Justice Ministry has decided to empower all district courts to take up habeas corpus petitions. “We have forwarded our decision to the cabinet for final approval two days ago, said Law and Justice Minister Prem Bahadur Singh, adding, “The decision aims to facilitate timely justice, especially for the people from the rural areas.” Currently, the Supreme Court (SC) and 16 Appellate Courts are authorized to take up habeas corpus writs. People, especially from the rural areas, are compelled to travel long-distances to file habeas corpus petitions. The Supreme Court, considering the gravity of habeas corpus, runs office even during Dashain and Tihar vacations. As per the constitution and existing laws, no one can be detained for more than 24 hours unless proven guilty. Police has to produce the detainees before the court within 24 hours of the arrest. “People are compelled to bear unnecessary tension and spend huge amounts of money to seek justice,” said Minister Singh, adding, “People could get rid of such problems if the district courts are empowered to take up habeas corpus petitions.” According to Law and Justice Secretary Madhav Paudel, empowering district courts to take up habeas corpus petitions would decentralize power in the judiciary. “The decision will help enhance common people´s access to justice and pave way for timely and effective settlement of habeas corpus petitions in a cost effective way, Secretary Paudel said, adding, “Judicial power shouldn´t be confined within the apex court.”