The number of lawsuits awaiting court verdicts is increasing and execution of court verdicts remains as ineffective as ever before. These two were highlighted in the annual report submitted by Chief Justice Prakashman Singh Raut to President Ram Chandra Paudel, the other day. However, according to the report, the Supreme Court and other courts across the country gave more verdicts as compared to previous years. The delayed execution of judgments has resulted in outstanding fines of over Rs 32 billion and accumulated life sentences of 125,000 years. As per the report, the number of sentences and fines continue to increase because the agencies responsible for implementing the court verdicts are not forthcoming. As a result, last year, courts implemented only 33 percent of the total sentences. The remaining sentences were forwarded to this year's figures, with a total of 114,637 years of imprisonment still to be enforced. And, enforcement looks difficult. The amount of fines to be recovered from hundreds of individuals have risen, by now, to over Rs 32 billion.
The report acknowledges that the courts have yet to implement several decisions, directive orders and verdicts for years despite adopting numerous strategies through strategic planning to execute the judgments and verdicts. Only 5 out of 180 public interest litigations have been implemented thus far. The report also states that the concerned authorities coordinated for the collection of fines. Additionally, it highlights that the government has been informed about the lack of a judicial police system at district courts, which is necessary to make the implementation of verdicts more effective. The report mentions that the relevant service-providing agencies received the details of individuals who have been penalized or fined to restrict their access to government services, but the implementation has not taken place. The courts alone cannot execute the verdicts. The state needs to adopt effective policy strategies to recover fines. Not that there are no budgetary provisions for "immediate" release of incentive funds to retrieve fines and sentences, but it is the same story all the time: the provisioned funds are not to be released due to a paucity of required funds at the finance ministry. Courts have a total of 162,000 unresolved cases. The Supreme Court alone has a pending caseload of 25,728, the High Courts 25,225 and the District Courts, 110,026.
IFJ urges Nepal to discourage false lawsuits aimed at silencing...
This points to the fact that the Nepali courts have a mountain to climb. There should be well-coordinated efforts from all sides to turn the situation around. While the state should provide adequate financial and human resources enabling courts to give speedy verdicts, the courts may also be advised to not entertain every lawsuit pressed forward – as is the practice around the world. In any case, many a time, the courts may not have the required competence or expertise, and sometimes, there are no laws based on which to hand a verdict. Also, in Nepal, there is a general tendency to move the court for rather narrow personal and vested interests just to buy time. Of course, political interventions come into play, limiting the judiciary's capacity to deliver timely justice. There may be hundreds of ills that need to be addressed before the Nepali courts are able to issue timely verdicts in a free and fair manner. All sides have to work together, or else, the Apex Court will be presenting more or less a similar report next year and the year after that, and the year after that.
