By Jagadish Dahal

Nepal’s justice system has become excessively lengthy and complicated. For ordinary citizens, seeking justice can mean years of court appearances, repeated hearings and mounting legal expenses. A system that takes too long to resolve disputes risks defeating the very purpose of justice.

Justice is not simply about reaching the correct decision. It is also about reaching that decision within a reasonable time. When justice is delayed for years, the consequences can be as damaging as an unjust decision. Therefore, Nepal’s judicial system urgently needs a comprehensive review, followed by necessary reforms in laws, procedures, technology and judicial administration.

The time has come to ask a basic question: Why should an ordinary dispute take years to resolve when technology and modern case-management systems can significantly shorten the process?

One of the most important reforms should be the introduction of clear timelines for judicial proceedings, particularly at the trial-court level.

When a plaintiff files a case, all necessary documents and evidence supporting the claim should be submitted at the outset. The defendant could then be given a defined period, such as 15 days, to submit a response and supporting evidence. Once both sides have completed their submissions, the court should have a clearly defined period within which to hear and decide the matter.

For appropriate categories of cases, a system could be designed under which disputes are resolved within 30, 60 or, in more complex cases, 90 days. This would not mean mechanically rushing every case. Cases involving complex evidence, multiple parties or exceptional circumstances would naturally require more time. But additional time should be justified by the complexity of the case rather than becoming an automatic feature of the system.

The principle should be simple: delay should be an exception, not the rule.

Where legislative amendments are necessary, Parliament should act. But where reforms can be introduced through amendments to court rules and procedures, the judiciary should not wait unnecessarily.

Nepal should also accelerate the digital transformation of its courts.

Case filing, submission of documents, responses, notices and access to judgments should increasingly be available through secure electronic systems. If a plaintiff can file a case electronically and a defendant can respond electronically, there is no reason for every procedural step to require physical attendance at court.

The same should apply to lawyers.

Where appropriate, lawyers should be allowed to submit both written and oral arguments through secure digital platforms. A lawyer sitting in the registered office of their firm should be able to participate in certain hearings remotely.

This would not eliminate physical hearings. Rather, it would allow courts to distinguish between proceedings that genuinely require physical presence and those that can be efficiently handled online.

Digitalisation could save time for litigants, lawyers, judges and court staff while also reducing paperwork and administrative delays.

The current practice of assigning cases through a lottery system also deserves serious review.

The purpose of the lottery system may be to ensure fairness and prevent parties from influencing which judge hears their case. That objective is important. But the system can also create practical difficulties when cases repeatedly fall before judges who cannot hear them or when complex cases are assigned to judges without relevant subject-matter expertise.

Transparency in case allocation must be protected, but so must judicial competence.

Nepal should therefore consider a case-allocation system that combines transparency with judicial specialisation. The objective should never be to allow litigants to choose judges. Instead, cases should be allocated through a transparent mechanism that takes the nature of the dispute and the expertise of judges into account.

Modern disputes are becoming increasingly complex. Commercial, banking, insurance, corporate and tax cases often involve technical issues that require specialised knowledge.

Nepal should therefore move beyond the idea of merely creating specialised courts or benches. Judges themselves should also be specialised.

Commercial disputes could be handled by judges trained in commercial law. Company disputes could go to judges with corporate-law expertise. Banking cases could be assigned to judges familiar with financial law, while insurance and tax disputes could be handled by judges with relevant expertise.

Such specialisation would not compromise judicial independence. Instead, it could improve the quality and efficiency of judicial decisions.

Nepal can study judicial systems in countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, Germany, India, France and the United States to identify practices that may be adapted to Nepal.

But Nepal should not blindly copy foreign models. A comparative study should examine why particular systems work and determine which elements are appropriate for Nepal’s own legal, economic and institutional circumstances.

Criminal cases also require greater categorisation.

Cases involving murder, serious bodily harm, narcotics offences and rape have particularly serious consequences for victims, accused persons and society. Prolonged proceedings can deepen the trauma of victims while leaving accused persons under the burden of unresolved allegations for years.

Nepal should therefore consider establishing pilot courts or specialised case-management mechanisms for serious criminal offences.

Such courts could follow streamlined procedures and strict timelines while fully protecting the rights of the accused, victims and other parties.

The objective should not be to reduce due process but to eliminate unnecessary procedural delays.

Singapore’s experience with efficient case management could provide useful lessons in developing such a model.

Nepal should also reconsider the structure of appeals and judicial review.

Quasi-judicial bodies exercise important powers in areas such as administration, regulation and taxation. Their decisions should be subject to a clear and effective system of judicial review.

Where appropriate, certain quasi-judicial decisions could first be reviewed by district courts, with appeals from district-level decisions going to the High Courts. Similarly, district court judgments should ordinarily proceed through the High Court as the next appellate level.

A clearer judicial hierarchy could reduce unnecessary pressure on the Supreme Court and courts in Kathmandu.

The Supreme Court should have sufficient space to concentrate on constitutional questions, major legal questions and cases of national significance rather than being overwhelmed by disputes that could have been resolved at lower levels.

Judicial reform cannot be achieved by the judiciary alone.

The executive must provide resources and technological infrastructure. Parliament must amend laws where necessary. The judiciary must reform its rules and case-management procedures. Lawyers and the wider legal profession must also participate in the reform process.

There must be coordination among the leadership of the judiciary, legislature and government, while fully protecting judicial independence.

The appointment of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma provides an opportunity to place these questions at the centre of judicial reform.

The new leadership should consider establishing a dedicated judicial reform mechanism involving judges, lawyers, legal academics, court administrators and technology experts. It could identify procedural bottlenecks, conduct comparative studies and recommend reforms that can first be tested through pilot programmes.

The immediate objective should be practical: identify what can be changed today and begin changing it.

Nepal does not need a justice system that merely processes cases. It needs a system that resolves disputes.

Justice should be fair, independent and reasoned—but it must also be timely.

A modern justice system should be faster without sacrificing fairness, specialised without compromising independence, digital without weakening due process, and efficient without undermining justice.

For Nepal, judicial reform is no longer simply a matter of institutional improvement. It is a matter of protecting citizens’ constitutional right to justice and strengthening the country’s economic, social and democratic development.

The time to begin that reform is now.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades.