By Our Reporter
That responsibility extends beyond the government. Parliament, political parties, constitutional bodies and the judiciary itself all have a role in rebuilding public trust through transparency, accountability and respect for institutional boundaries.
An independent judiciary does not weaken elected governments. It strengthens democracy by ensuring that laws apply equally to everyone. Judges must remain accountable, but accountability should never become a political weapon. If impeachment or political pressure is used to influence judicial decisions, the greatest casualty will not be the courts alone. It will be the rule of law itself.
The debate over Nepal’s judiciary has moved beyond legal circles into the heart of politics. Allegations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists that Supreme Court justices were pressured to resign and threatened with impeachment have raised a larger question: can the judiciary remain independent if judges believe political forces can shape the court’s composition?
Whether the allegations are ultimately proven is only part of the issue. The controversy itself exposes a deeper institutional weakness. Judicial independence is not measured only by the absence of direct interference. It also depends on judges feeling secure enough to decide cases without fearing political consequences.
A judge does not need to receive direct instructions from political leaders for independence to be compromised. If judges believe unpopular rulings could invite impeachment or removal, that perception alone can influence judicial behaviour. Courts exist to check executive and legislative power. That role becomes difficult when judges fear retaliation.
Impeachment is a legitimate constitutional mechanism designed to address serious misconduct or abuse of office. It was never intended to serve as a political warning. Once it is used to pressure judges instead of ensuring accountability, its constitutional purpose is undermined.
Nepal’s Constitution creates an added vulnerability because a judge is automatically suspended once an impeachment motion is registered. The process itself carries immediate consequences, even before allegations are examined. That makes the threat of impeachment a powerful political tool.
The failed impeachment attempt against former Chief Justice Sushila Karki remains one of the clearest examples. Many legal experts viewed it as retaliation for judicial decisions that displeased political leaders. Although the attempt failed, it weakened public confidence in the separation of powers.
The latest controversy also comes as the Supreme Court is hearing several politically sensitive cases involving constitutional appointments, executive decisions and government authority. In such a climate, any attempt to influence the composition of the court inevitably raises concern.
Governments everywhere become frustrated when courts block policies or overturn decisions. Judicial review often delays executive plans and exposes constitutional flaws. Political leaders may disagree with court rulings, but disagreement cannot justify efforts to influence the judiciary.
The controversy over the Constitutional Council ordinance illustrates the same concern. Critics argue that allowing appointments to proceed with only half the council’s members increased political influence over constitutional bodies. Questions surrounding Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s appointment have further fuelled concerns that political considerations are gaining ground over institutional norms.
None of this automatically proves wrongdoing. Governments have every right to defend their decisions. Judges are not beyond criticism. Accountability remains essential in a constitutional democracy.
The line is crossed, however, when criticism becomes intimidation. Governments unhappy with court decisions have lawful options. They can seek judicial review, propose constitutional amendments where appropriate or present stronger legal arguments. What they cannot do is create an atmosphere where judges believe their careers depend on political approval.
Judicial independence is not an abstract legal principle. It protects citizens by preventing any one branch of government from concentrating excessive power. Courts ensure that governments remain subject to the Constitution rather than becoming the final judges of their own actions.
Nepal has experienced repeated institutional crises over the past two decades. Weakening confidence in the judiciary would deepen those challenges. The recent concerns should therefore be treated as an opportunity to strengthen institutions rather than dismissed as political criticism.
Login to add a comment