<img width="800" height="506" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110161132/636d1a0e9c7e80680e0ac851jpeg.jpg" alt=""/>Even though Nepal’s political parties do not seem very keen for the moment to impeach controversial Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana, the mutiny against him is spreading among justices and lawyers.Chief Justice Rana’s alleged pressure on Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to make his brother-in-law a minister earlier this month and other purported misdemeanours have halted proceedings in the Supreme Court as judges and lawyers go on the warpath.Things have got so volatile that on Friday lawyers for and against Rana had a fistfight outside the Nepal Bar Association as it was announcing an intensified agitation against the chief justice. A video clip of the scuffle went viral on Nepal’s social media.<blockquote>नेपाल बार अगाडि वकिलबीच कुटाकुट प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्र शमशेर जबराका समर्थक र विरोधी वकिलबीच शुक्रबार नेपाल बारभित्रै कुटाकुट भएको हो। <a href="https://t.co/lCX8qdJBNJ">pic.twitter.com/lCX8qdJBNJ</a>— Setopati (@setopati) <a href="https://twitter.com/setopati/status/1453995371030454272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2021</a></blockquote> Video: SETOPATI/TWITTER<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/what-is-happening-to-nepals-supreme-court/">What is happening to Nepal's Supreme Court?</a>, Santa Gaha MagarThe row over the chief justice has cast a spotlight on the transactional relationship between Nepal’s executive and judicial branches, and deliberate and blatant attempts by the political leadership and the chief justice to violate the principle of<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/supreme-court-puts-nepal-politics-back-on-track/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> separation of powers</a>.Public and judicial outcry ensued after news emerged that the Chief Justice had <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/what-is-delaying-nepal-cabinet-expansion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">demanded ministerial appointments</a> for two of his people as the coalition government was deliberating a much-delayed Cabinet expansion earlier this month.Deuba agreed to one cabinet position, appointing Rana’s brother-in-law Gajendra Hamal as the Industry, Commerce and Supplies Minister. Deuba and Rana both refuted allegations of bargaining, but not very convincingly. Even Deuba’s own party members said appointing Hamal was wrong.As the outrage spread, Hamal resigned less than 48 hours into his ministership, but this only added fuel to the fire as many saw it as an admission of the chief justice and the prime minister <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/quid-pro-quo/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">scratching each others’ backs</a>.To be sure, other members of the ruling five-party coalition have not shown much interest in registering an impeachment motion in Parliament against Rana. In fact, Parliament was conveniently prorogued on Friday, citing the opposition UML’s disruptions of proceedings. The UML’s K P Oli, who had to step down as prime minister after the Supreme Court ruled in July that his <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-supreme-court-restores-house/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dissolution of the House</a> was unconstitutional, is also opposed to impeachment — saying that five other judges who passed that verdict should also resign.<a style="font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/old-wine-in-old-bottle-in-nepal-politics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Old wine in old bottle in Nepal's politics</a>, Shristi KarkiFor the past week, justices and lawyers have been boycotting full court meetings called by Rana, as well as cases in the Supreme Court and other courts across Nepal, bringing the judicial process to a standstill. As it is, only the Chief Justice-led single bench has been conducting hearings at Nepal’s top court.On Friday, the Nepal Bar Association issued an ultimatum to Chief Justice Rana to resign by 3 November, otherwise, it would undertake escalating protests including further boycotts of hearings, preventing Rana from entering the Supreme Court premises and even street rallies.On Thursday, Rana repeated in an interview with BBC Nepali that he would not step down just because some justices were calling for it. “I was appointed through a constitutional process, and I can only be removed through a constitutional process,” said Rana, possible convinced that the political parties would not move to impeach him.However, second-tier leaders of the Nepali Congress on Friday issued a statement calling on their party to protect judicial independence, the rule of law and separation of powers. ‘The Nepali Congress cannot remain silent in the controversy involving the chief justice when there is so much opposition to him from within the Supreme Court and the legal system,’ the statement by 12 NC members including Gagan Thapa, Sarita Prasai, and Dhanaraj Gurung said.And as Chief Justices, current justices on the court, as well as the Nepal Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association called on the Chief Justice to step down, <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-govt-fills-cabinet-after-3-months/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Deuba and his coalition partners</a> have stayed silent on the matter, privately hoping that Rana will resign and take the decision out of their hands.Rana, who was appointed Nepal’s top judge by the KP Oli government in 2019, has remained steadfast in his refusal to resign unless the four other justices of the five-member bench that reinstated the parliament dissolved by Oli and appointed Deuba Prime Minister resigned along with him. The four other justices are Deepak Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwor Khatiwada, and Ananda Mohan Bhattarai.Instead, Rana has said that he is ready to face the constitutional process, daring the coalition to file an impeachment motion.Every politician and party has a reason not to anger Chief Justice Rana at present. A hearing against Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai for their alleged involvement in the Lalita Niwas land ownership case is due on 1 November.Similarly, K P Oli has also filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against Speaker Agni Sapkota over his refusal to expel then-UML lawmakers as well as against the Election Commission over Madhav Kumar Nepal’s registration of his new party. Sapkota, who is a Maoist, himself also has a war crime case against him pending in court.<a style="font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-post-breakup-politics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nepal's post-breakup politics</a>, Santa Gaha MagarMany see Nepal’s recent political and judicial developments as the beginning of the end of the separation of powers within Nepal’s branches of government.In March 2013, following its failure to draft the Constitution after two-term extensions, Nepal’s Constitutional Assembly was dissolved. Subsequently, Nepal’s political parties, seeking a ‘neutral party’ to oversee the next CA elections, <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/blogs/thebrief/2013/03/14/regmi-sworn-in-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">appointed Khil Raj Regmi</a>,  who was then Nepal’s Chief Justice, as the chairman of the council of ministers. Regmi led a caretaker government and presided over the 2013 elections, and <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/blogs/thebrief/2014/02/11/khil-raj-regmi-resigns-as-cj/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">resigned after the elections in February 2014</a>.In hindsight, this was a watershed moment for the erosion of the separation of powers within Nepal’s executive and judicial branches.In 2017, an<a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/blogs/thebrief/2017/05/01/lady-justice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> impeachment motion </a>was filed against <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/interview/a-woman-is-as-capable-sushila-karki,3375" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chief Justice Sushila Karki</a> by the coalition government of the NC and the Maoists, who accused her of interfering with executive decisions after Justice Karki overturned the government’s choice for Nepal’s Chief of Police.Expert and public consensus at the time was that the impeachment served to intimidate the judiciary and Karki, who was noted for her integrity, independence and <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/from-nepali-press/I-will-not-spare-the-corrupt,3156" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">aggressive stance on corruption</a>.Karki was reinstated after the single bench of Justice Rana issued an order against the impeachment motion.Rana’s tenure has not been without controversy, with the Chief Justice having come under scrutiny for reducing sentences of convicted murderers, acquitting individuals charged with corruption and manipulating favourable benches as favours to businessmen and politicians.Indeed, the controversy has also brought to light the practice of ‘bench buying’ in the Supreme Court, which Rana has been accused of facilitating. The decision on which cases have which benches assigned is so rife with corruption that bench-selection has become a money-making scam.An independent judiciary is the foundation of a functioning democracy and ensures that the branches of government operate within a system of checks and balances. But the controversy surrounding the Chief Justice, much more blatant than previous misgivings from within Nepal’s judiciary, has exposed the long-standing quid pro quo relationship between Nepal’s executive and judicial branches.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/non-government-of-nepal/">Non-government of Nepal</a>, Sonia Awale

Shristi Karki

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

Nepal’s lawyers on warpath against Chief Justice

<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108121144/636a41ab9c7e80680e04a68bjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="519"/>The organisational infrastructure of the court system is of critical importance for the success of Nepal’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/federalisms-birth-pangs-or-death-rattle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new constitutional order</a>. It is in the lower courts that people come face to face with the judicial branch of government, and where the ordinary and routine forms of justice most directly affecting daily life are in practice. Subnational courts therefore should not be forgotten in considering the judiciary’s irreplaceable role in instilling a commitment to the rule of law and encouraging a <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/grassroots-democracy-is-delivering-development/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new way of doing politics</a>.Nepal’s network of 77 district courts is the gateway for virtually all of the country’s litigation (85,000 cases in 2017-18, over which district courts oversaw final resolution to 60%). Yet both in resource allocation and in public imagination, these courts are the most neglected. It is remarkable that a mere 241 judges discharge the enormous workload.Read also:Part 1: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/federalism-rule-of-law-and-the-judiciary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Federalism, rule of law and the judiciary</a>, George Varughese and Iain PaynePart 2: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/constitutional-guardianship-in-nepal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Constitutional guardianship in Nepal</a> , George Varughese and Iain PayneWhile the <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/share-rule-and-self-rule/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2015 Constitution</a> has changed the executive and legislative, the court structure has not undergone significant revision, except to add two district courts — for a total of 77 — and to refashion 16 appellate courts as seven high courts with their 11 benches extended across respective provinces.The subordinate courts now have slightly enlarged purview. For the first time, provincial high courts will be able to hear public interest litigation, hopefully lessening some of the Supreme Court’s caseload burden. District courts now supervise all justice institutions, formal and informal, below the district level.District courts also have increased authority to oversee criminal offences punishable by more than one year imprisonment, many of which were previously adjudicated by quasi-judicial bodies like the district administration office. They have new jurisdiction over some civil matters previously supervised by the district executive.Critical access-to-justice issues have been inherited from the previous governance setup. For example, the geographical inaccessibility of the district courts, which remain the lowest court in judicial hierarchy and sit at the now obsolete district headquarters, are one of the key reasons why only a fraction of disputes tends to be registered with the proper court and judicial authority. The judiciary’s absence in municipal government is glaring and hardly addressed by the presence of so-called judicial committees, which fall under the municipal executive.Moreover, wholesale state restructuring must take into account roles and responsibilities of different justice sector institutions at the local level, and the judicial branch’s reflections on these would be timely in guiding other branches of government. This is especially the case with regard to judicial committees in 753 locations, about which inconsistent visions are projected in <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/constitutional-guardianship-in-nepal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Constitution</a> and the Local Government Operations Act of 2017— the federal framework legislation that presently guides local government operations. This is also the case with the option provided for in the Constitution allowing the creation of local courts if required. The judicial branch’s reluctance to provide guidance on constitutional provisions for accessing justice beyond district courts could result in costly adjustments.These issues need to be addressed to guide the creation of a coherent and coordinated system for accessing justice locally, one that builds community and citizen trust in the entire justice sector and positions the judiciary in its rightful place in government. The lowest rungs of the judicial branch carry the greatest burden in making justice more accessible to more people. Much work, therefore, remains to be done to ensure that the promise of bringing all three branches of government closer to the people is fulfilled.Renewed commitments to judicial independence headlined the recently concluded National Conference of Judges. However, aside from the hot-button topic of judicial appointments that dominated discussion, only a few creative ideas emerged. Perhaps the most federally relevant of those related to empowering provincial courts to settle disputes between provinces and municipalities. Ideas such as this, while nascent, indicate that the judiciary may be willing to look for ways to be more responsive to the needs of the changed governance context.With a recently appointed Chief Justice and remaining vacancies filled, Nepal’s Supreme Court is drafting its fourth strategic plan with more stable leadership and better prepared justices than ever before. This will drive the judiciary’s institutional vision, direction and contribution to democratic government in Nepal over the next five years.Previous strategic plans have focused on court administration, caseload management, infrastructural and modernisation needs, and training programs. These remain necessary but will be insufficient to fulfil the difficult role of rethinking and reworking access to justice in a federal context. Oversight of the judicial functions of the state — wherever those may be located — is a key strategic metric of performance of the judicial branch.More difficult will be the deep institutional introspection and principled actions required to assert independence while exercising guardianship of the rule of law. It is vital that the judicial branch of the government sees itself as a trusted partner of both state and society, with its functionaries embracing their role as ‘justices of the people’ and not just of the court.Only then will a constitutional culture shaped by the rule of law translate into access to justice in federal Nepal.This concludes a <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/federalism-rule-of-law-and-the-judiciary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">three-part series</a> by Iain Payne and George Varughese who are associated with <a href="http://nitifoundation.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Niti Foundation</a>.

Devolving the judiciary

mainNavigation

footerNavigation

opinionSubnav