The recent row between the legislative and the judiciary over the nomination of 11 new Supreme Court justices was unnecessary. At the center of the storm was Speaker of the parliament, Onsari Gharti, who had decided to send the letter of recommendation with the names of new justices back to the Judicial Council, arguing that the council was incomplete and therefore unauthorized to make such recommendations. Gharti had cited the absence of regulations for conducting parliamentary hearings of the nominated justices as another reason for sending back the list of nominees. True, the five-member Judicial Council is yet to get a complete shape, but with three of the five members present, it was also in a clear majority when it nominated the new judges. As the Supreme Court is woefully understaffed—making do with just 10 of the up to 21 judges allowed by the new constitution—around 20,000 cases are pending with the apex court. Of around 100 cases filed with the court every single day, on average, only 12 are resolved. It is hard to believe Speaker Gharti is not aware of this disastrous state of the highest court in the land.But we have a bigger objection with her second reason for sending back the recommendations. She says that there is no regulation to conduct parliamentary hearings of the recommended judges. That is again true. But as the speaker of the house, it's her responsibility to arrange for such hearings. By taking the easy way of sending back recommendations, it seems she was simply trying to run way from her duty. As worrying is the fact that her stand against the Judicial Council does not seem based on firm conviction. Otherwise she would not have agreed on Tuesday to readmit the recommendations in parliament, without either of her objections addressed. Such ad hoc decision-making does not behoove someone occupying such an important post. If she is in doubt about a course of action, she has a legion of advisors she can consult. But she should not do anything to mar the crucial relation between the legislative and the judiciary. The need of the hour is for all three organs of the state, including the executive, to work together to implement the new constitution.
We have our own objections with the new recommendations for Supreme Court judges. The recommendations could have been more inclusive and they should, ideally, not have included the names of those who have in the past held political offices. For even as there should not be unmanageable tension between different branches of government, there should also be a safe distance between them so that each can function independently. This separation is vital for the health of the nascent democracy. Some questions have rightly been raised concerning the independence of the judiciary following the recent recommendations. But our objection is with some of the recommended names; not with the process per se. Appointment of additional justices to the apex court was, in fact, overdue. We support any effort to add new legs to the traditionally tardy judiciary. The judiciary must be in line with the country's changing needs.
Related story
Wrong pick
