to function within the purview of Constitution and statutes. In case the Commission is to be viewed above the law and Constitution, then it would be useless to say that Constitutionalism and rule of law prevails in Nepal. As such, the prohibition imposed by Section 25 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 that the actions carried out by the Election Commission as regard to the collection of Electoral Rolls are shall not be the subject of judicial review also seems to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11(1), (2), (3) of Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 enabling the registration of names into the Electoral Rolls also on the basis of land ownership certificate, etc. apart from citizenship certificate as well as the provision of Section 25 of the same Act is inconsistent with the Constitution, therefore, an order has to be issued as requested by the petitioner. The synopsis of the argument presented by learned advocates Mr. Ratneshwor Prasad Sharma, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Sita Ram Agrawal, Mr. Jagannath Mahato Singh, Mr. Raman Kumar Karna and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Karna on behalf of the concerned party Madhesi Lawyer’s Association obtaining the permission of the Court pursuant to the Rule 42(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1992, is as follows: Section 5 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006, while determining the qualification of a voter has required that he or she should be a Nepali citizen. It has not mandatorily sought for Nepali citizenship certificate. As this provision of Act is consistent with the letter and spirit of Article 8 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, the overall arrangement of Section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 is Constitutional. A citizen is a citizen whether or not he/she has obtained citizenship certificate. The State and all citizens have to be aware that an alien or foreigner should not participate in the electoral process of Nepal. However, denying someone from the right to vote only on the ground that he/she has not obtained citizenship certificate shall be contrary to the Constitution. Nobody can dispute the fact that a foreigner should be allowed to vote. But everyone has to be sensitive enough on the fact that a genuine Nepali citizen should not be deprived from the right to vote. Section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 has not overlooked the significance of a citizenship certificate. It has only ensured the voting rights of those who are yet to obtain citizenship certificates by verifying them through alternative evidence. As such the provision of Section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006, which has permitted for admissibility of proof such as land ownership certificate and recommendation of local bodies for the purpose of registering the name in the Electoral Roll after duly verifying that he or she is a Nepali citizen, is Constitutional. This writ has been filed without sufficient study the Constitution and relevant laws. It has also been claimed that the provision of Act inconsistent with Article 46 of the Interim Constitution which has already been repealed by 5th amendment to the Constitution. The writ petition has failed to categorically state which provision of the Act has been inconsistent with the constitution. The Court cannot conduct judicial review of the Act on the basis of an ambiguous claim made without a specification that the provision of Act is inconsistent with the Preamble, and Articles 1,2,8,9,10,63,65 and 129. Hence, the writ petition has to be quashed. The synopsis of arguments furnished by learned Joint Government Attorney Mr. Yuba Raj Subedi on behalf of the respondent Government of Nepal and learned Deputy Government Attorney Mr. Bharat Mani Khanal representing the Election Commission is as follows: Article 8 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 has provided that the persons eligible to acquire Nepali citizenship certificate shall also be the Citizen Nepal. Hence, the legislature has made the provision of Section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 to ensure the right to vote even to the Nepali citizens who have not yet obtained citizenship certificates. Therefore, this provision cannot be termed as being inconsistent with the Constitution. The provision of Section 11 has neither denied nor disregarded the importance of citizenship certificate. That legal provision made for enabling to ask for corroborating evidence like land ownership certificate for the purpose of including the name in the Electoral Rolls of the person who has not obtained citizenship certificate after making verification of whether a concerned person is eligible for obtaining citizenship certificate is constitutional. The restriction imposed by Section 25 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 that no question may be raised in any court as regards the Electoral Rolls prepared by the Election Commission is also not inconsistent with the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007. This fact has been settled by the Special Bench in the writ petition (2067-WS-0019) involving writ petitioner Sunil Ranjan Singh Vs Election Commission. Hence, the provision except the ‘citizenship certificate’ of Section 11(1) of Electoral Rolls Act, 2006, the provisions of Section 11 (2,3) and 25 of the same Act are not inconsistent with the Constitution and since the decision of Election Commission on 2nd November, 2010 are Constitutional in themselves, therefore, the writ petition has to be quashed. After obtaining permission of the Court as per Rule 42(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1992, the concerned parties and learned advocates Mr. Prakash Mani Sharma and Ms. Kabita Pandey 33 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION