Issuing a press release after a full court meeting on Wednesday, the Supreme Court stated that it is concerned over the draft forwarded to the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) of the Constituent Assembly (CA) by the Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee (CPDCC)."The provision is against constitutionalism, the separation of powers, the theory of checks and balance and the basic concept of judicial independence," stated the full court meeting.
"No democratic constitution in the world has such a practice and any provision for keeping the judiciary under a parliamentary committee would be unacceptable to the judiciary as a matter of principle," it furthered stated.
The full court has also decided to request the CA chairman, the CDC and the CPDCC to retain only a provision that accords with democracy and constitutionalism.
Nepal Bar Association has also objected to the provision in the draft new constitution that there shall be a parliamentary committee to probe and monitor the performance of the chief justice and other justices.
According to the proposed provision, a parliamentary committee shall be formed to probe and monitor whether or not the chief justice and other SC justices have been working sincerely and in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land.
Nepal Bar Association (NBA), the umbrella organization of lawyers across the country, on Monday expressed strong objections over the proposed provision. NBA said inclusion of such a provision in the draft was erroneous and needed to be rectified.
Stating that the provision goes against the universal principle of judicial ndependence and the constitutional practices in Nepal, NBA called upon the CA chairman and all political parties to safeguard the principle of an independent, efficient and effective judiciary.
NBA had also suggested that formation of a separate permanent parliamentary committee to oversee the issue related to impeachment of the chief justice and other judges would be the proper system rather than the proposed provision.
Constitutional experts and legal practitioners have also criticized the proposed provision.
Noted lawyer Dr Yuvaraj Sangraula said that the proposed provision on probing and monitoring the performance of SC justices through a parliamentary committee would bring about an end to justice in the country.
"As a Judicial Council recommends the appointment of justices, there already exists checks and balance. The monitoring of justices would only wreck havoc on the judicial system," said Sangraula.
"The Judicial Committee in parliament could look after the impeachment process but monitoring and probing justices does not accord with the concept of an independent judiciary," he added.
Related story
SC justices refuse to appear before House Panel
