per the law that only proves that the person is a Nepali citizen. Moreover, in the event that the Constitution stipulates qualification for citizenship and someone attains that qualification there would be the problem of identification and therefore, he/she has to obtain citizenship certificate so as to identify himself. Even if a person if qualified for becoming a citizen, it does not mean that the citizens need not obtain citizenship certificates for the purpose of voting and becoming candidates in elections. In democratic system the state cannot compel anyone to do some act. In other words, though the State may not compel everyone to obtain citizenship certificates still, if anyone is wishes to exercise his or her political right through voting right in the capacity of a Nepali citizen, then he or she has to obtain citizenship certificate so as to introduce himself. and therefore this need not be repeated here. The Section 11 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 which have been challenged by the petitioner needs to be examined/considered in relation the articles 8 (1) and 65(A) and Section 5(1) (A) of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006. 23. In Section 5(1) (A) of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006, it has been provided that a person has to be a Nepalese citizen for being eligible for casting vote. It has already been interpreted above that the term “Nepali Citizen” means “ the person who has obtained Nepali citizenship certificate”. If any legal provision gives otherwise meaning, disregards it or restricts or controls the meaning of the above mentioned provision of the 5(1)(A) or the provision that a person has to obtained citizenship certificate for being registered as a voter is against the constitution and thus against the Article 8(1) and 65(A) and is hence unconstitutional. Viewing from this point of view, to make the provisions like “land ownership certificate”, “ identity card issued by a government office, local body, government owned organization or educational institution” and “recommendation of Village Development Committee or Municipality” in the Act and gives equal status to these documents to that of citizenship certificate is to be maintained that the legislature has exercised the power beyond the limit. Since the term “ citizenship certificate” used in Sub-section (1) is clear in itself and therefore, the legislature cannot add the other documents substituting the citizenship certificate. It has to be understood as maintaining the necessity of citizenship certificate for the registration of name in the Electoral Rolls, the Enrollment Officer may ask for submitting the documents mentioned in Sub-section (1) and (2) including land ownership certificate for corroboration and verification of the citizenship certificate if citizenship certificate seems unclear or confusing. Therefore, it cannot be agreed with the pleas of the learned advocates representing the respondents and intervener that the obtaining or not obtaining of a citizenship certificate does not make substantive effect in including names in the Electoral Roll. Thus, there is no debate on the fact that the essence of qualification of Nepali citizenship set forth in Article 65(a) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 and Section 5(1) (a) of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 invariably refers to a Nepali citizen who has obtained citizenship certificate. 21. It has been already discussed above that whether the provisions “ land ownership certificate or any identity card issued by a government office, local body, government owned organization or educational institution of the Section 11 (1) of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006, except the term “citizenship certificate” and the provision “ recommendation of Village Development Committee or Municipality” of the clause (2) of the same section are inconsistent with the Article 65(A) of the Constitution. However, while interpreting the constitution and law, harmonious construction has to be made to it for giving sense to the true intention of the legislature. While examining the constitutionality of any law, it has to be presumed that the law is consistent with the constitution. It is a recognized principle that a law has to be declared ultra vires only if it clearly crosses the limits set by the constitution. 24. The petitioner in his writ petition has claimed that the provision of Section 25 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 is inconsistent with the different Articles of the Constitution. The provision of the Section 25 is as follows: Section 25. Not to raise question in court: No question may be raised in any court about the following matters: 22. It has already been discussed above that the claim made in this writ petition in regard to the Article 65(A) is moot because the election of the Constituent Assembly has already conducted (a) As to whether or not the name of any person has been registered in, or may or may not be registered in, the Electoral Rolls of any election constituency; (b) As to the preparation of the Electoral 40 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION