8.2 The Five Prescribed Cases

(1) Diwas Acharya vs. Government of Nepal (NKP Vol. 7/8, D.N. 7238) Citation (as prescribed): Nepal Kanoon Patrika, Vol. 7/8, Decision No. 7238 (the volume/year number not printed in the syllabus's citation). The era's frame: the decision number's chronology places it in the early-2060s B.S. (circa 2003/04 A.D.) — the 2047-Constitution era's writ jurisprudence, the advocate-petitioner practice already established. The study-frame: an advocate versus the Government of that vintage — the questions of the era's profession-and-state litigation: the conditions of practice, the professional rights asserted against state action, the state's regulatory powers over the profession. Extract from the report: the issue (which professional right or duty), the court's approach (the writ's scope over professional matters), the holding's principle (its place in Units 1-3). (2) Advocate Sapana Pradhan Malla vs. Government of Nepal (NKP 2064, Vol. 9, p. 1208, D.N. 7880) Citation (as prescribed): Nepal Kanoon Patrika, 2064 B.S. (2007/08 A.D.), Vol. 9, p. 1208, Decision No. 7880. The petitioner's eminence: Adv. Sapana Pradhan Malla — the noted human- rights advocate (the women's-rights litigation's leading figure). The doctrinal home (secondary- source context): academic commentary on Nepal's gender-equality jurisprudence associates the advocate-petitioner's cases of this line with the women's-property-rights litigation (alongside the Meera Dhungana cases) — the era (2064 B.S., the interim-constitution transition) and the court's directive-order practice noted in that literature;…