Therefore, Clause 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution and the final authority on its interpretation, needs to be activated, according to another constitution expert. “It’s the final arbitrator and, without the institution, no agency can get relief,” he said. “The court would determine whether the cabinet decision had affected the constitutional rights of ACC.”

Chief Justice Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye said that, in this particular case, where ACC is dissatisfied with the action taken by the Cabinet against the implicated officials, the Supreme Court was crucial to verify the case and determine whether ACC was right or whether the Cabinet’s decision was justifiable.

The CEO appointment came under scrutiny after one of the unselected candidates alleged that the selection procedure was flawed and unfair. ACC investigated the case and submitted a report to the government on September 15 proposing “serious actions” to be taken against officials involved in the appointment, especially the acting secretary of information ministry, Phala Dorji, who was also the chairperson of the board.

The cabinet, after reviewing the case, said that the selection process was flawed and decided in November to replace the current board of directors of the corporation. The appointed CEO, Tsheten Gyeltshen, who had not fulfilled the criteria in the first place, was given a one-year probation.

Tsheten Gyeltshen, the former deputy secretary of the communications ministry, was still a civil servant when he contested the CEO post. Observers reason that, as a civil servant, he did not go by the Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC) rules and regulations. For that deviation, both he and RCSC were answerable to the government.

ACC had also proposed that the government take appropriate action against the information and communications minister, who endorsed the selection results of the new CEO. Phala Dorji had ambiguously presented the decision of the board to the MoIC minister and the minister approved the appointment. But the communication ministry had no authority to approve the appointment and, under the constitutional interpretation, no cabinet minister has the authority to make decisions on his own, and all decisions have to reflect collective responsibility, according to another constitution expert.

ACC officials said that action against those involved was not firm enough and that they would keep fighting and fight harder.

Observers point out that, while this particular case was not so important in itself, it was an important issue because Bhutanese society would have to deal with many such cases in the context of the Constitution.