"Bimalji, could you please inform me where and under which condition has police detained my husband (advocate Madhav Baskota)?" Baskota's wife called and asked me whether I knew about her husband's whereabouts. I checked with my sources and informed her about the place where Baskota was detained. Immediately after that conversation, I received three other calls from lawyers' wives and questions were similar.
It was the fact of the the day when lawyers were attacked with bullet for protesting against former King Gynendra Shah's autocratic rule in 2006. The people's movement 2006/07 was successfully moving ahead and people from almost all walk of lives were supporting the movement. On the morning of April 13, 2006, thousands of lawyers gathered at Nepal Bar Association's central office at Ramshahpath. Hundreds of security personnel had already picketed Bar premises. Despite serious security threat, lawyers took out the rally. The rally headed towards Maitighar, a prohibited zone by local administration at that time. Immediately after, the police personnel opened fire and attacked lawyers with bullets. Dozens of lawyers were injured, hundreds arrested. Madhav Baskota was one among them.
Related story
Unfolding the facts
Within an hour the incident went global. Along with Nepali media, BBC, CNN and various international wire agencies including Indian outlets disseminated the news about attack against lawyers with high priority. Lawyers' wives knew about their husbands' arrest through radio and television news and had called me to inquire about their husbands' whereabouts as they were familiar with my intimacy to lawyers' community. I have great respect and faith in lawyers' community. I find this incident worth mentioning to depict the historical contribution of lawyers for the restoration of democracy in Nepal. No doubt those lawyers have been playing significant role for protection of constitutional supremacy in the country. Their contribution mustn't be underestimated or go unrecognized because they have played positive role in all major changes of the country.
Of late however, this author has become a little skeptic about lawyers' role and activities. Ongoing bar-bench rift is the latest example. Actually, the latest rift between bar and bench prompted this author to develop this write up. I want to clarify that the objective of this article is not to vent ire at lawyers and protect judges. I don't mean all lawyers are corrupt and judges are clean. However, given lawyers' activities for the past couple of years, there are allegations that lawyers are projecting themselves as if the state has to take prior consent from them before reaching any decision. They are protesting against all major government decisions without considering their professional boundaries. They seem to be influenced by the personal vendetta and ideology of the political parties they belong to.
They protested the appointment of Khil Raj Regmi as Prime Minister citing that chief justice shouldn't be appointed the PM. Their concern was valid from the point of view of theory of check and balance. Indeed, Regmi himself was also very serious and worried of that fact. However, they didn't seem to understand the gravity of the situation facing the country at that time. They blamed Regmi as if he himself wanted to become PM by compromising with judicial independence. They were aware of the fact that Regmi initially rejected the idea of becoming PM but had to accept the proposal later following massive pressures from major political forces. It took a month for parties to convince him to accept the the new role to save the country from being a failed state.
Did Nepal Bar Association realize this reality and talk accordingly in the public platform? Even after his appointment, lawyers allegedly kept hatching conspiracy to trouble Regmi-led government under various pretexts. However, Regmi silenced his critics and lawyers by not only successfully conducting Constituent Assembly elections but also by not returning to judiciary in capacity of chief justice though there was no constitutional hurdle for him to do so.
Senior party leaders recommended the name of Lok Man Singh Karki as CIAA chief and subsequently Regmi-led government appointed Karki to the post. Many were surprised to see lawyers' protest against Karki's appointment as they didn't confine their protest only in statement but also came to the street like the party cadres do. Yes, lawyers fought for democracy and that was for the greater interest of the country. But were it only lawyers who fought for democracy? Did journalists, other professional groups and people at large fight less than the lawyers? Do lawyers have the right to protest each decision of the government in the name of fighting for democracy? Can anybody claim that Nepal's judiciary has less contribution than the lawyers?
Lawyers strongly objected the appointment process of few judges at the Supreme Court about a year ago. Yes, this author absolutely agrees with the notion that the judges' selection process has to be transparent. Yet, is it the duty of the lawyers to single out judges' integrity or is it the duty of the judicial council? Are lawyers absolutely clean? Are judges alone responsible for the corruption within the judiciary? Aren't lawyers equally responsible for the corruption in judiciary? Yes, lawyers have right to comment and make statement on public issues. However, isn't it their duty to look into concrete evidence before blaming others? Lawyers can tip off judicial council against suspected judges. And only the judicial council has the right to point finger against any judges if found guilty. Lawyers absolutely have no right to assassinate anyone's character in the name of controlling corruption.
Few weeks ago, some lawyers publicly said that Supreme Court judges are indulging in corruption and they have concrete evidence against such judges. They also claimed that they are ready to furnish evidence if required. Chief justice Ram Kumar Prasad Shah wrote letters asking lawyers to provide evidence as to which judge is indulging in corruption. Many were expecting that the Nepal Bar Association would provide concrete evidence as demanded by the chief justice and action would be taken against the guilty.
Unfortunately, Bar didn't provide evidence. Lawyers replied to chief justice saying that they will provide evidence only to judicial council and the parliament. What nonsense! Chief justice himself is the chairman of the judicial council. How can the Bar say that they trust only Judicial Council but not its chair? Is it fair? Bar did blunder by saying so. It would have been wise decision on the part of Bar had it furnished evidence before chief justice. Bar and some lawyers committed another blunder by not providing evidence as demanded by the chief justice. They could have compelled the chief justice to initiate probe against suspected judges had lawyers provided evidence. They blamed but failed to substantiate their allegations.
It shows that lawyers' statement was not based on evidence and fact and it was just for cheap popularity. It is true that Judiciary is also marred by corruption as pointed out by various study reports in the past. However, one cannot agree with the statement that only judges are corrupt and lawyers are clean. Corruption is possible within the judiciary only with the nexus between judges, lawyers, middlemen, judicial officials, plaintiffs and defendants of court cases. Yes, the judges have problem. Yet, Nepal Bar cannot generalize the trend because not all judges are corrupt. Neither all judges nor all lawyers are corrupt. There are judges with high integrity and honesty, so are lawyers. Bar can point out flaws in judges' ruling and verdict. Pointing out flaws in court ruling itself is enough to single out particular judge. Also, Bar shouldn't forget that if judiciary's image is tarnished, lawyers' image would also be tarnished simultaneously. Therefore, Bar and Bench should work closely to clean the judiciary if there is any dust.
Twitter: @bimal_gautam
