Kathmandu, May 19: Opposition lawmakers have accused the Parliamentary Hearing Committee of trying to rush the confirmation process of proposed Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, raising concerns over inadequate time for scrutiny.
At a meeting held Tuesday morning at Singha Durbar, members objected to the plan to conclude the hearing on the same day it begins. Committee Chair Boda Narayan Shrestha had listed discussions on 16 complaints filed against Sharma, his work plan, and interaction with complainants on a tight schedule starting 1:30 pm.
Lawmakers said the pace undermines proper review, especially since the committee had earlier allowed 10 days for submitting complaints. They argued that reviewing sensitive constitutional appointments requires detailed examination, not a compressed timeline.
Nepali Congress lawmaker Padma Aryal said members were not given enough time to study the documents. She suggested postponing the hearing to allow proper review. “It is difficult to examine everything by 1 pm today. We should not rush decisions. Let us study overnight and decide later,” she said. She also demanded access to key documents, including recommendations from the Constitutional Council and views from relevant constitutional actors, arguing that withholding time for study weakens the committee’s authority and credibility.
CPN-UML lawmaker Prem Dangal also sought time, saying the 16 complaints were detailed and required careful study. He added that Sharma’s work plan also needed review before questioning. “At least give us today for study. We can meet early tomorrow if necessary,” he said, objecting to immediate progression from document review to hearings with complainants and the nominee.
Nepal Communist Party lawmaker Narbahadur Bista criticised the process, saying the committee appeared to be functioning as a rubber-stamp body. He questioned the urgency of completing the process within a single day and said there was no justification for rushing such an important constitutional appointment. He also argued that if no real scrutiny was intended, the process should not be labeled a hearing.
Another lawmaker, Barshaman Pun, said the schedule seemed overly compressed and raised concerns that the process risked becoming procedural rather than substantive. He also suggested that the committee chair appeared to be under pressure, though he did not specify its source. Pun added that since the post carries a six-year tenure, proper accountability checks were necessary before approval.
Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmakers took a more procedural stance. Madhukumar Chaulagain said once members had already gathered for the hearing, the process should proceed according to rules rather than stall. Kavindra Burlakoti suggested following the scheduled agenda first and extending time later if required for a final decision.
Despite the objections, the committee continued preparations for the hearing while discussions with complainants over the 16 petitions were underway. The debate highlighted growing tension between demands for procedural thoroughness and pressure to complete constitutional appointments within tight timelines.
People’s News Monitoring Service
Login to add a comment