KATHMANDU, May 8: The Constitutional Council (CC) has recommended Supreme Court (SC) Justice Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma for appointment as the next Chief Justice (CJ) of Nepal, in a move that departs from established seniority norms and has triggered debate within legal and political circles.
A meeting of the CC held on Thursday decided by majority vote to forward Sharma’s name for parliamentary hearing and subsequent approval. If endorsed by the Parliamentary Hearings Committee and appointed by the President, he will become the 33rd Chief Justice of Nepal.
The recommendation has drawn attention because Justice Sharma currently ranks fourth in the SC’s seniority order. His nomination marks the first known instance in Nepal’s judicial history in which a Chief Justice has been proposed in breach of seniority tradition.
Dr Sharma was appointed to the Supreme Court on April 19, 2019. He is expected to serve a full six-year term if confirmed.
The CC selected Sharma over Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and senior justices Kumar Regmi and Hari Prasad Phuyal, all of whom rank above him in seniority.
The decision exposed divisions within the CC. National Assembly Chair Narayan Prasad Dahal and opposition leader Bhishmaraj Angdembe submitted written notes of dissent, objecting to the recommendation on the grounds that it bypassed established seniority conventions and procedural precedent.
Constitutional Bench formed on basis of seniority and expertise...
According to officials familiar with the meeting, Prime Minister Balendra Shah (Balen), who chairs the CC, defended Sharma’s nomination on the basis of his independence and professional background. He reportedly described Dr Sharma as a non-political legal expert suited for the role.
Among CC members, Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal, Deputy Speaker Rubikumar Thakur, and Law Minister Sobita Gautam supported the proposal, enabling a majority decision.
The recommendation has prompted internal consultations among senior justices reportedly affected by the decision. One senior justice described the development as “unexpected,” adding that discussions were ongoing and that the judiciary was currently in a “wait-and-see” phase regarding its institutional response.
Legal observers note that the decision could reshape expectations around judicial succession, particularly in relation to seniority-based advancement.
Justice Dr Sharma was born on June 18, 1970, in Birgunj, Parsa. He holds an LLB from Nepal Law Campus, Kathmandu, an LLM from Pune University, India, and a PhD in Labour Law from Tribhuvan University.
Before his appointment to the SC, he served as an additional judge at the High Court from 2013 to 2015 and worked extensively as a legal advisor to private and institutional clients. He has also participated in national and international legal forums.
If appointed, Dr Sharma’s tenure is expected to coincide with the retirement of 11 Supreme Court justices. These include several senior figures who would retire during his term, reshaping the court’s composition significantly.
Even after his eventual retirement, Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal would remain eligible for several additional years of service, depending on tenure calculations.
Former Chief Justice and ex-Prime Minister Sushila Karki criticized the Council’s recommendation, calling it a departure from merit-based and seniority-driven judicial tradition.
She argued that Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla was highly qualified and had made notable contributions to legal reform and gender representation in the judiciary. Karki warned that bypassing seniority could undermine institutional trust and weaken progress on judicial inclusivity.
Bar Association calls emergency meeting
In response to the development, the Nepal Bar Association has convened an emergency meeting for Friday to determine its official position.
According to Bar General Secretary Senior Advocate Kedar Koirala, the meeting will include consultations with constitutional experts, legal scholars, and former office-bearers before issuing a formal statement.
“We will decide our course of action after receiving recommendations from advisors and experts and make our position public tomorrow,” Koirala said.
The recommendation has intensified debate over the balance between seniority, merit, and executive influence in judicial appointments. Analysts say the outcome of the parliamentary hearing process will likely have lasting implications for Nepal’s judicial appointment framework and institutional independence.
-1778309205.webp)
