"The constitution and religion have given special responsibility to the King as a devotee of Hindu religion. He formed the RCCC to fulfill that responsibility," he said, adding, "Such orders are implemented as per the constitution and law." I am not trying to split hairs here but please read between the lines. Although this statement does not specifically say that all royal orders from Hindu King is constitutional, it does imply it. What is the intent here? He is saying that any arbtirary decision that is not vested to King by the constitution of 1990, is legal because King has special responsibility (which in this case, means power). This special power will cover any (or all) unconstitutional decision made by the King. However, I agree that lame or intelligent decision, Nepalese courts do not have enough balls to go against the King. All the three branches of a modern Government (executive, legislative, and judicial) plus religion are now under King just like mullahs of Iran or Taliban of Afghanistan. What does this make Nepal? A fundamentalist state?