A Long Road to Judicial Reforms

Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s 21-point directive to courts across Nepal is a welcome acknowledgment of a problem that citizens have known for years. Nepal’s judiciary faces not only a backlog of cases but also a growing crisis of public trust. The directive calls on judges to act with integrity, clear old cases swiftly, improve service delivery, strengthen accountability, and use technology to make justice more accessible to citizens. These are sensible steps, but the real challenge lies in the implementation of the Chief Justice’s directive. For many Nepalis, going to court is often the last option after all other avenues have been exhausted. Yet many litigants find themselves trapped in a system where cases remain unresolved for years. Justice delayed is not simply an administrative problem; it can destroy livelihoods, deepen family disputes, discourage investment, and leave victims without relief. In many cases, a court victory that arrives after a decade no longer feels like justice. This is why the Chief Justice’s focus on clearing old cases deserves support. Courts cannot continue carrying huge backlogs while new cases keep coming in. A slow judicial system not only undermines confidence in the rule of law but also pushes people toward informal and, in some cases, illegal means of dispute resolution.

Delay is only one of many problems. Allegations about middlemen operating inside and around the judiciary have long cast a shadow over its credibility. Today, it is not uncommon to hear claims that some individuals have the power to influence hearings and even verdicts. Such allegations, whether fully proven or not, damage public trust. Courts derive their authority from people’s belief in the legal system. When a perception takes hold that connections and money matter more than legal merit, faith in the judiciary begins to erode. The Chief Justice has issued timely instructions to monitor and curb the activities of such middlemen. However, real reform cannot be achieved through circulars and directives alone. It requires thorough investigation into such allegations and sustained institutional action to address them. Officials found guilty of misconduct must be held accountable and punished. The judiciary must develop strong internal accountability mechanisms that operate without fear or favour. Equally important, courts must become more citizen-friendly. Legal language, procedures, and processes should not be so complex and intimidating that ordinary citizens are discouraged from seeking justice. Many people perceive courts as institutions accessible only to the wealthy, the influential, or those highly knowledgeable in law. Simpler procedures, digital courts, prompt service delivery, and improved communication at all levels can help bridge the gap between courts and citizens.

However, the responsibility to improve the judiciary does not rest on the judiciary alone. The new government, which came to power promising good governance, must recognize that judicial reform is central to that agenda. Good governance cannot exist without a credible justice system. Courts are institutions that enforce accountability, protect rights, and check abuses of power. If the judiciary is weak, every anti-corruption pledge ultimately loses force. The government should invest in court infrastructure, expand the use of technology, fill vacancies, strengthen lower courts, and provide adequate resources for case management. Judicial independence must be protected, but independence should never mean isolation from accountability. Ultimately, the strength of Nepal’s judiciary depends not only on constitutional provisions but on public confidence. That confidence will not be restored through speeches or directives alone. It will return when cases move faster, middlemen disappear, corruption is punished, and citizens see that justice is delivered fairly and without influence. Only then can the judiciary fully play its role in building a more accountable, equitable, and corruption-free Nepal.