Is it the right decision of Supreme Court to give a last deadline for Constituent Assembly in Nepal?
Speaking from a checks and balances viewpoint, I think that the judicial branch is correct to step in when the other two branches of government either cannot or will not complete a task as vital as the composition of the Constitution. The court should be able to step in and arbitrate when other sides lack the ability or the will to do so. This is the case in Nepal, as far as I understand it. The Court has issued a last deadline, refusing an extension, because it believes the governmental agency, The Constituent Assembly, has not proceeded with urgency in drafting a constitution. There might be something to this as there should be no job more important or more pressing than a nation's constitution to be drafted. It is not exactly a desirable situation. If the Supreme Court grants the extension, then it really has no power over the legislative branch and is a rubber stamp for it. If the Supreme Court forces the issue and denies the extension, then the nation moves closer to a constitutional crisis and a political freefall. In the end, I think that the Supreme Court did what it had to do in terms of asserting the idea that no one, not even the members of government, is above the needs and demands of abiding by and writing a constitution.