Kathmandu, May 10 (IANS). Open conflict has started between Balendra Shah’s government and the judiciary in Nepal. The Constitutional Council has nominated a Supreme Court judge, ranked fourth in seniority, for the post of Chief Justice. Because of this the government and the judiciary have come face to face.
On May 7, the council led by Nepalese Prime Minister Balendra Shah had recommended President Ram Chandra Paudel to appoint Justice Manoj Sharma as the Chief Justice. However, Manoj Sharma was fourth in seniority among the judges of the Supreme Court. Nepal has a decades-old tradition of appointing the most senior justice to the post of Chief Justice. In such a situation, this tradition was broken by appointing Manoj Sharma to the post of Chief Justice.
National Assembly Chairperson Narayan Dahal and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives Bhishma Raj Angdembe wrote notes dissenting against the recommendation and stressed that the long-standing tradition should not be broken.
Acting Chief Justice Sapna Pradhan Malla on Saturday reacted strongly to the decision of the Constitutional Council and said that efforts are being made to bring the judiciary under the control of the government.
“This is an attempt to turn the judiciary into an institution that surrenders and compromises with the executive body,” Malla, the senior-most Justice of the Supreme Court, said after concluding an event to mark the 74th National Law Day.
He said that the long standing tradition of seniority has been broken. He told the media, “It is not important who is affected but it is an attempt by the government to control the judiciary as per its wish.”
The government says that Manoj Sharma has shown more ability than other senior judges. On this, Justice Malla said, “I do not know on what basis the ability was tested. Ability can be tested through competition and work. Whatever details have been given about the ability are not correct. How do you judge the overall ability, this question is important.”
However, the government had presented data that Sharma had given more judgments than the other three senior judges at the time of evaluation.
Earlier, in a special ceremony organized on the occasion of 74th Law Day, Malla said that the meaning of justice should not be diluted by pressure from a government with two-third majority or threats of impeachment.
Addressing the judges present at the event, Malla said, “Justice cannot be served through fear or influence of anyone. Be it the fear of a powerful government or the threat of impeachment, judges will have to rise above such small obstacles.”
He appealed to the members of the judiciary to maintain the sanctity of justice with courage and without discrimination and stressed that it is necessary to take decisions without fear to maintain the independence and dignity of the judiciary.
The strongest criticism of the council’s decision has come from former Prime Minister Sushila Karki. Let us tell you, former PM Karki was also the first woman Chief Justice of Nepal. Speaking to news portal Online Khabar after the recommendation, he said that a capable woman justice was not given the opportunity to become the Chief Justice of the country.
He said, “Nobody is as capable as Sapna Pradhan Malla. Her capability is even more than mine. This is a slap on the face of 15 million women (half the country’s population).”
Karki also expressed anger over the decision of the Constitutional Council on Saturday. While interacting with the media after the end of the Law Day event, a journalist addressed her as mother, which angered Karki. In fact, Prime Minister Shah had earlier used this word for him.
He said, “Don’t call me mother. Your mother has changed now. Balendra Shah’s wife (Sabina Kafle) is now a mother, the mother of the country.” Let us tell you, after the Gen-Ji movement in September last year, Karki was appointed as the interim Prime Minister. Current PM Balendra Shah played an important role in this appointment.
Karki had earlier said that the council’s decision would impact judicial independence. He said, “The way efforts have been made to control the court, this government will not be in a good position. Interfering in the court is not a good thing.”
Constitutional lawyer Bipin Adhikari told news agency IANS that although the Constitution does not prevent the council from recommending a junior justice for the post of Chief Justice, there are concerns that breaking the tradition of appointing the senior-most justice could give the government an opportunity to maneuver and select its favorite candidate for the top post in the Supreme Court.
“This could impact the independence of the judiciary, which is responsible for checking and balancing the executive branch of the state,” he said. According to the official, the government’s argument that Justice Sharma had a better track record based on the number of judgments was wrong.
He said, “Mere numbers cannot be a parameter to judge a judge’s performance. What is more important is the quality of the judgments and their impact on setting judicial precedents.”
He believes that the perception that Malla and other senior judges were first appointed on the basis of political power-sharing may have been a major reason why the ruling party-dominated Constitutional Council did not recommend senior-ranking judges for the post of Chief Justice, instead evaluating them only on the basis of performance.
The Constitution does not prevent the Constitutional Council from selecting one of the six judges recommended by the Council of Justice; It has been a long standing tradition to recommend the most senior judge of the Supreme Court. However, earlier some judges were rejected by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee after complaints against them.
Under Article 129 of the Constitution of Nepal, a justice who has served as a Supreme Court judge for at least three years is eligible to become the Chief Justice.
–IANS
KK/PM