A legal challenge to the long-term power trade agreement signed between Nepal and India raises questions about whether the agreement is truly motivated by national interests or whether normal bilateral economic relations are being politicized is occurring.
The dispute over the agreement stems from disputes over other water-related agreements signed with the country's southern neighbor, including the Kosi, Gandak and Mahakali river agreements.
The two countries signed a 25-year power trade agreement in early January during Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar's visit to Nepal. Under the agreement, India has committed to purchase 10,000 MW of electricity from Nepal over 10 years, ensuring a long-term market for Nepal's electricity.
However, former government secretary Surya Nath Upadhyay has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court arguing that the agreement is against Nepal's interests as it allows India to exploit Nepal's water resources unfairly. Ta.
He argued that since the issue concerned the distribution of water, a natural resource, parliamentary approval was required pursuant to Article 279, Section 2 of the Constitution, and that the agreement would only be implemented with parliamentary approval. The government sought a court order. .
Supreme Court Justice Nahakul Subedi's bench on Friday invited Bench's Curiae to represent both sides on the day of consultations, saying the issue raises constitutional and legal questions.
The court also asked the Nepal Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to send advocates or senior advocates to represent each side of the argument.
The court also ordered the government to explain within 15 days why the court should not issue an interim order for implementation of the agreement as requested by the petitioners.
Stakeholders are divided over whether the power trade agreement signed with India is in Nepal's national interests.
In a recent interview with the Post, Upadhyay said the deal hurt Nepal's interests because India did not pay for the regulated water it would receive from Nepal after developing reservoir hydropower plants.
“You cannot equate the value of naturally flowing water with the value of regulated water after damming a river and flooding Nepal's land and human settlements,” he told the Post. Ta.
He also said that an agreement allowing India to buy Nepal's power on its own terms is not in its national interest as New Delhi continues to refuse to buy power from projects developed with the involvement of foreign companies, especially Chinese companies. argued that it is contrary to
Nepali officials said the agreement does not prevent them from selling electricity in the Indian market, except for projects developed with the involvement of China and Pakistan.
But other officials said a long-term power trade deal with India is essential to attract investors interested in Nepal's power sector and reduce the country's growing trade deficit with its southern neighbor. .
Electricity has emerged as one of the largest export items, with exports worth Rs 15.4 billion last year.
The question of whether the deal with India requires parliamentary ratification will be decided by the Supreme Court, but supporters of the deal argue that such a deal is more important to Nepal than it is to India. It is claimed that This is because the country already experiences power outages during the rainy season.
Former Energy Secretary Dinesh Ghimire said, “Why are those opposed to long-term power trade agreements silent when Nepal and India signed a similar agreement in 2014, paving the way for bilateral power trade?'' I wonder if he did that,” he said. “Why don’t they also seek Congressional approval for the power deals that are going on?”
The 2014 agreement paves the way for cooperation in the power sector, including the construction of cross-border transmission interconnections and power interchange through public and private entities. The agreement provides Nepal with access to India's energy market while also allowing energy producers to engage in cross-border electricity trading.
“Even after the adoption of the new constitution in 2015, we have not heard any calls for parliamentary approval for the implementation of the 2014 electricity trade agreement,” Ghimire said.
Politicization of issues related to water resources is common in Nepal. The agreement with India will come under increased scrutiny, regardless of whether there is merit to the dispute, the people said. Many experts consider the Kosi and Gandak treaties to be unequal and unjust to Nepal, and the Mahakali Treaty, signed in 1996, proved controversial.
However, projects such as the Arun-3 hydropower project, which was planned to be developed with World Bank support, also fell victim to politicization, leading to the World Bank's withdrawal in the mid-1990s.
The failure of the development of this project had a negative impact on the country in the future, since the people had to suffer from long-term offloading for 10 years starting in the late 200s.
Ganesh Karki, president of the Nepal Independent Power Producers Association, argued that protesting the long-term agreement signed with India would prevent Nepal from exporting its surplus electricity to its southern neighbor.
“Many countries have built their wealth by exporting manufactured goods. For Nepal, electricity is a similar export item. Why shouldn't the country export more of it?” Kalki said. Ta.
He also expressed concern over the possibility that implementation of the long-term power trade agreement signed between Nepal and India would require parliamentary ratification.
“Even if Congress ratifies a standard trade agreement for the purchase and sale of goods and services, it just creates more red tape,” he said.
