By Rabi Raj Thapa
Many people know the meanings of “welfare” and “warfare,” but perhaps only a few know the meaning of “lawfare.” Lawfare is the strategic, and often abusive, use of the legal system and legal proceedings to achieve goals traditionally pursued through military force or hostile non-military actions. It is a blend of “law” and “warfare,” aimed at damaging, delegitimizing, or exhausting an opponent—whether states, groups, or individuals—through litigation, lawsuits, or compliance costs.
Today, Nepal appears to be going through a form of lawfare between the executive and the judiciary. There is a great deal of unnecessary debate and wrangling taking place in Parliament. This is an unprecedented and avoidable crisis, deliberately conceived and nurtured by corrupt political leaders in collaboration with judicial professionals.
Today’s dogfight over the selection and appointment of the highest judicial position in the Supreme Court is the result of the failures and misjudgments of politically inclined figures in the executive, legislative, and judicial organs. Nepal may be one of the very few countries where chief justices of the Supreme Court are indicted or impeached like ordinary individuals. Some have even accepted positions barred by the Constitution without shame or guilt.
The ugly confrontation between Prime Minister Balen Shah and Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla has created another bad precedent for the good governance promised by the new government. The main culprits are past political leaders who left behind ambiguities that have now culminated in conflicts of interest between old practices and new, unorthodox visions and ambitions.
This is also a clash of political cultures—between a new generation of parliamentary leaders and older political stalwarts with less formal academic backgrounds, many of whom spent more time in prison or street demonstrations than in schools or universities. This represents a different kind of transition: one shaped by generational change and elite education.
Whatever the case may be, it does not look good or desirable to see professional legal practitioners displaying unprofessional and indecent behavior while either supporting or protesting against the government through the media, the streets, or the courts.
The crux of the matter is this: Who is the proper authority, and what is the right process, for appointing and selecting justices of the Court? This, too, has become part of Nepal’s internal lawfare.
Lawfare does not require guns or tanks rolling through the streets, nor does it require dictators pounding their fists on tables. Yet May 2026 may prove to be a fateful period for Nepal’s Supreme Court, where decisions regarding the selection and appointment of the chief justice appeared deceptively normal but created a vulnerable and debatable precedent of enduring significance.
This suggests that people in positions of authority are not there solely to deliver justice and protect citizens; rather, they seem increasingly focused on protecting their egos, public images, and personal interests. This is not good for the country or its people.
In fact, the conflict and confrontation between the heads of the executive and judiciary is a shameful and humiliating episode in Nepal’s judicial history. It should be taken seriously by all concerned stakeholders—the Supreme Court, the Bar Association, the executive, and Parliament.
Nepali people are deeply disappointed by the current series of events, as they are witnessing a gradual erosion of trust and respect toward Nepal’s judicial institutions, systems, and practices.
Partisan syndicates have deeply divided legal practitioners into political camps ranging from the extreme left to democrats and other ideological groups. This does not help; instead, it creates more confusion and further complicates the judicial system and its practices.
The status of law and justice in Nepal has become increasingly fragile and precarious. The ball is now in the judiciary’s court, where many responsible stakeholders—the lawyers, judges, judicial officials, and ultimately their final victims, the common people—must act responsibly.
Therefore, let us hope that concerned judicial stakeholders will use their common sense to uphold the rule of law with utmost honesty and restore respectability to the legal profession through accountability. Law should remain a tool for justice, not a tool for arbitrary rule and injustice.
Login to add a comment