Court cases tend to be rather lengthy, more so in Nepal. As compared to the two other branches of the government, the legislative places the most importance in ‘due process’. Since examining and corroborating evidence is inherently time-consuming, a little delay is warranted, although we would certainly like to see the Nepali judiciary doing more to speed up justice delivery by ending the infighting and timely appointment of vital personnel.
It was thus astonishing for the Acting Chief Justice Damodar Sharma-led Supreme Court bench to quash 17 writ petitions filed against the appointment of CJ-led election government and the concomitant constitutional amendments without proper hearing. Sharma reportedly quashed the 17 petitions, all filed before the formation of the Regmi government, within 10 minutes of the sitting of the court on Thursday. [break]
Apparently, the petitions were dismissed since there are seven similar writ petitions scheduled for hearing by full bench beginning September 19. Since both sets of petitions are more or less the same, the SC bench decided it makes more sense to hear the ‘principle cases’ rather than waste time on minor ones.
On a practical level, there is nothing wrong with this line of logic—if indeed the two sets of petitions are similar, as seems to be the case. But again, the apex court cannot function like a corporate house where the premium is on efficiency. In a court of law, due process must be allowed to take its natural course. Law practitioners are justifiably worried that if the head of the apex court has so little regard for due process and can dismiss cases at his discretion, the spirit of the judiciary is as good as dead. We agree. As it is, people’s faith in the executive and the legislative are at an all-time low. If even the judiciary can’t be relied upon on the most pressing problems before the country, democracy in Nepal is under serious threat. Moreover, Thursday’s unilateral verdict on 17 cases adds to the suspicion that even verdicts on the seven principle cases will be influenced from ‘above.’
The independence of the judiciary has come under question ever since the formation of a government led by a sitting Chief Justice. Now the apex court’s refusal to even hear cases against the Khil Raj Regmi government sends a disturbing message that it is not the justices who are calling the shots within the court system. The acting Chief Justice faces some difficult questions. Does he have the right to quash writ petitions that the Supreme Court had itself decided as worthy of hearing? If so, why did the SC endorse the cases for hearing? And what kind of a precedent does this set? The judiciary should be extremely careful about how it conducts itself at this difficult juncture.
Ever since Nepal entered a state of transition in 2008, the executive has been repeatedly blamed of undermining judicial supremacy. If the most important members of the judiciary start behaving in ad hoc manner on vital matters, the executive might find it even easier to bypass the judiciary in the future. Messrs Regmi and Sharma should know this more than anyone else.
Related story
Water level of Narayani River crosses danger mark
-1776353206.webp)
