By Our Reporter
The recent appointment of 27 High Court judges in Nepal has reignited debate over the judiciary’s fairness, transparency, and independence. The Nepal Bar Association’s (NBA) strong objection reflects a deep-rooted concern: political bargaining, rather than merit and constitutional principles, is shaping judicial appointments.
While 28 more senior judges were disregarded in a recent appointment round, 26 district judges were elevated to the High Court. Each major party secured its share of the lawyer positions, which were also distributed along party lines.
The NBA has charged that the Judicial Council is ignoring the Constitution’s guarantee of inclusive and proportional representation, which is meant to guarantee the meaningful involvement of women, underrepresented groups, and representatives from various geographical areas. Public confidence in the judiciary declines and the promise of equal access to justice is betrayed when appointments do not represent the social diversity of the nation.
The dispute is not brand-new. The political parties- the CPN- UML, Nepali Congress and Maoist Centre are often blamed for competing each other when it comes to the judges’ appointment in any court of the nation. Party networks have long influenced nominations to High Courts and even the Supreme Court. Judicial seats have been distributed among political parties’ affiliates as if they were negotiating chips. The trend is supported by data from previous years: career judges and judicial staff, many of whom have served for decades, are marginalized while politically connected attorneys are given preference.
Such actions have two negative consequences. First, they depress court officials’ and career judges’ morale. If promotions are based on political allegiance rather than skill, talented people will not be as motivated to dedicate themselves to a career in the judiciary. Secondly, they undermine the independence of the judiciary. An independent judiciary that can serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches is essential to democracy. The separation of powers is undermined when political quotas are used to determine judicial appointments. The judiciary runs the risk of becoming an extension of party interests rather than upholding the law and the Constitution. This stands in stark contrast to the constitutional ideal of an impartial and equitable legal system.
The NBA’s demands strict adherence to merit, open criteria for appointments, and full application of inclusive principles go beyond simple formalities. They serve as protections for democracy in general. Judicial reforms are merely symbolic without these protections, and public trust in the legal system will keep declining.
Political sharing cannot be used to appoint people to such significant positions without jeopardizing the integrity of the legal system as a whole. A court that is shaped by party deals will find it difficult to uphold the rule of law and command respect. The decision for Nepal is straightforward: either change the appointment procedure to reflect inclusion, integrity, and merit, or run the risk of using the court as a political instrument.
Login to add a comment