By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
The Rashtriya Swatantra Party, under the leadership of Balendra Shah, popularly known as Balen, formed the government on March 27, 2026. Immediately, the government introduced an ambitious 100-point reform agenda aimed at tackling corruption, depoliticising institutions, and digitising public services. The roadmap sets strict, time-bound deadlines for several major policy directives across Nepal.
But some of its key decisions have come under judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court issued a temporary order blocking the government’s decision to abolish the trade unions of civil servants and student unions and to remove landless squatters from different parts of the country. The apex court’s decision has thrown cold water on the government’s efforts to restructure a governance system plagued by decades of misrule and poor governance. This clearly suggests that the executive and the judiciary are on a collision course.
After the Balen-led government came to power, Nepal Police, under the instruction of the home minister, arrested former prime minister KP Oli and Ramesh Lekhak for their alleged role in the suppression of last year’s Gen Z movement, which killed over 70 innocent youths. This marked the beginning of the conflict between the executive and the judiciary. The apex court intervened and issued a habeas corpus order allowing the release of KP Oli, Ramesh Lekhak, and Deepak Khadka. The court’s decision not only thwarted the government’s commitment to bring those involved in the killing of innocent youths during the Gen Z protest to book, but also strained relations between the two branches.
Barely a month later, the executive-judiciary confrontation reached a new height. This time, it was related to the appointment of the chief justice. The Constitutional Council meeting, chaired by the prime minister, picked Manoj Kumar Sharma based on meritocracy, bypassing the three other senior judges of the Supreme Court. The move irked Sapna Pradhan Malla, who argued that it was a violation of a long-established tradition. At a Law Day function held in Kathmandu, she said she was not afraid of pressure from a government enjoying a nearly two-thirds majority. She even went on to say that she was ready to face impeachment while defending judicial autonomy. However, her inflammatory remarks drew mixed reactions, with critics saying that a sitting judge is not expected to deliver such a strongly worded speech aimed at the executive.
Detractors said that the move violated the long-held tradition of appointing a chief justice on the basis of seniority. On the other hand, supporters of the Council of Ministers’ decision say that it marks the beginning of a new era in which meritocracy is given due priority — something that was very rare in the past. In plain words, this has set a new precedent that shattered the practice of political bhagbanda within the judicial system. However, it remains to be seen whether it has truly ended the practice of bhagbanda and laid the foundation for a strong judiciary in the country.
While many welcomed the executive’s decision to appoint the chief justice on the basis of meritocracy, some sections of society smell a rat in the move. According to them, the government chose Manoj Kumar Sharma because it feared non-cooperation from judges backed by political parties. In the recent past, the judiciary has issued one order after another to thwart key government decisions, forcing the administration to bite the bullet. Against this backdrop, the selection of Manoj Kumar Sharma appears understandable.
Meanwhile, the government and the opposition are at each other’s throats in Parliament. The opposition is demanding that the prime minister furnish details in response to their queries regarding the government’s policies and programmes. They boycotted the House meeting after the PM assigned Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle to respond to lawmakers’ questions on his behalf. Though legal provisions allow the PM not to appear in Parliament, the move ignited backlash. Given the prevailing situation, it can be assumed that people are so obsessed with Balen that they are eager to see how their popular prime minister delivers his speeches in Parliament.
It is an established fact that the executive, judiciary, and legislature are the pillars of a functioning democracy. They are independent branches of government under the principle of separation of powers. The purpose of keeping them independent is simple: to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one branch. Each branch can also check and balance the others. This is the beauty of democracy.
But democracy itself is threatened when one branch undermines the significance and value of another. For democracy to be sustained, the government needs to comply with court decisions, judges should distance themselves from political platforms, and Parliament should avoid making unnecessary decisions on judicial matters. These principles are not always written word for word in the constitution. Yet democracy rests on these invisible boundaries, which every branch should uphold in letter and spirit.
Over the years, the relationship between the judiciary and the executive has often become the subject of debate among policymakers and citizens. It is important to understand the difference between cooperation and animosity between them. In a democracy, neither the courts nor the army function under personal will; they operate under the constitution.
But in the recent past, we have witnessed instances in which one branch of government undermined the authority of another. One visible example was the dissolution of Parliament by former PM Oli at his personal discretion, which many viewed as an abuse of executive power. One needs to understand that such practices have no place in a democracy.
After decades of political instability resulting in poor governance and rampant corruption, Nepal now has a government with a nearly two-thirds majority. It bears the responsibility of clearing the chaos created by its predecessors and improving governance. People have pinned high hopes on this government, believing that it will not embrace any strategy that puts the hard-won democracy at risk. A simple truth remains: the greatest strength of the judiciary is its restraint, and the greatest strength of government is its accountability.
Login to add a comment