By Our Reporter
The dispute in Parliament over Nepal’s judiciary raises a question that has troubled the country for decades: how can judges remain independent from political pressure while still being held accountable for misconduct, corruption and poor performance?
The concern behind the debate is legitimate. RSP lawmaker Yagyamani Neupane has called for restructuring the judiciary, investigating judges’ assets and creating a parliamentary mechanism to study court verdicts. UML lawmaker Guru Prasad Baral argues that such parliamentary involvement would amount to interference in an independent judiciary.
Both sides of this debate point to genuine problems. Nepal certainly needs an independent judiciary. Without judges who can rule against the government, Parliament, powerful politicians or wealthy interests without fear, constitutional democracy becomes hollow. Courts exist partly to prevent those holding political power from exceeding the limits of that power.
But independence cannot become a shield against accountability. Ordinary Nepalis judge the justice system from a different angle. They encounter lengthy cases, expensive legal procedures and repeated delays. Questions have also persisted over appointments, middlemen and political influence. Controversies surrounding the Judicial Council have continued, including disputes over appointments, seniority and compliance with appointment procedures.
That makes calls for reform understandable. Neupane’s demand for greater scrutiny of judges’ assets, for example, deserves serious discussion. He has also sought legal changes requiring judges and constitutional office holders to disclose their assets publicly. Judges exercise enormous public authority. A credible mechanism for investigating unexplained wealth would strengthen rather than weaken judicial independence if it operates impartially and with proper safeguards.
The more difficult issue is Parliament reviewing individual judgments. That road should be approached with extreme caution. Parliament makes laws. Courts interpret them and decide disputes. If lawmakers create a committee capable of questioning judges about why they ruled against the government or Parliament, judicial accountability could quickly turn into political pressure.
Judgments should certainly be criticised. Lawyers, academics, journalists and citizens must be free to examine whether judicial reasoning is consistent, convincing and constitutional. Higher courts already review lower court decisions through appeals. But judges should not have to calculate how ruling against the political majority might affect their careers.
Recent events make that distinction particularly important. Some RSP lawmakers intensified criticism after the Supreme Court issued an interim order stopping implementation of parliamentary rules concerning the calculation of the two thirds threshold for constitutional amendments. When judicial reform becomes closely connected with dissatisfaction over particular rulings, suspicions of political retaliation naturally arise.
Nepal therefore needs reform, but the mechanism matters. The Judicial Council should be the starting point. Its procedures need greater transparency, predictable appointments and stronger investigation of credible misconduct complaints. The Council already plays a constitutional role in appointments, transfers, disciplinary action and dismissal of judges. Strengthening that institution is safer than transferring judicial oversight directly to politicians.
Asset declarations could also become more transparent, backed by an independent mechanism capable of investigating unexplained wealth. Judicial appointments should follow published criteria based on competence, integrity and experience. Political bargaining over judges must be reduced.
Court administration needs equal attention. Digitising procedures, enforcing case management deadlines, publishing performance data and reducing unnecessary adjournments would matter far more to ordinary citizens than another political battle over institutional power.
Most importantly, reform must separate misconduct from judgments. Investigate corruption, conflicts of interest, unexplained wealth and serious ethical breaches. Challenge questionable judgments through appeals, review, legal scholarship and public criticism. Do not confuse an unpopular ruling with judicial misconduct.
Nepal does not have to choose between an independent judiciary and an accountable one. It needs both. Political control would weaken the courts, but judicial independence without credible internal accountability would weaken public confidence just as surely.
Login to add a comment