KATHMANDU, MAY 8 The Parliamentary Hearing Committee (PHC) has begun the hearing process for Manoj Kumar Sharma, the proposed chief justice of the Supreme Court. A committee meeting held today at Singha Durbar decided to call for com-plaints against the proposed chief justice. The Committee Chairperson, Bodh Narayan Shrestha stated that a 10-day period has been provided to file complaints for the hearing of the proposed chief justice. He stated that information or complaints can be sub-mitted via electronic or oth-er means within 10 days of the notice's publication by providing clear grounds. He added that the complaints received will be opened and studied during the commit-tee meeting scheduled for May 19 (Jestha 5). There is a provision that the recommended justice is appointed by the president after being endorsed by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee. The Constitu-tional Council meeting held yesterday had decided to recommend Justice Sharma for the position of chief jus-tice. In Nepal's judicial histo-ry, this is the first instance where a justice ranked fourth in the order of senior-ity has been recommended for chief justice. CRITICISM PILES UP As a result, opposition leaders have taken a dig at the process of recommend ing Sharma as CJ. Nepali Congress President Gagan Thapa, speaking at a pro-gramme here today, com-mented that the Constitu-tion was flouted during the recommendation of the chief justice. Thapa remarked that al though the Constitutional Council was established to prevent the prime minister's complete interference in ap-pointments to constitutional bodies, the Constitution was disregarded while recom-mending the chief justice. He said, 'It is explicitly written that the prime min-ister's interference must not prevail in the Constitutional Council. It is mentioned that the Constitutional Council was established to exercise control over the head of gov-ernment because they tend to act forcibly. That has been completely flouted.' Harkaraj Rai, the chairper-son and Parliamentary party leader of Shram Sanskriti Party, has also expressed suspicion that the recom-mendation of Sharma as chief justice was made to se-cure favourable decisions re-garding cooperatives fraud and the Gen Z movement. Publishing a statement to-day, Rai criticised Prime Minister Balendra (Balen) Shah, stating that it was wrong to issue an ordi-nance regarding the Consti-tutional Council by bypass ing Parliament and pressur-ing the president. He also expressed regret that Deputy Speaker Rubi-kumari Thakur, who was elected from his own party, signed the decision that vio-lated the order of seniority. Chair Rai stated, 'The Shram Sanskriti Party forev-er opposes the practice of prioritising politics by flout-ingestablished procedures.' NBA'S STANCE The Nepal Bar Association stating that it remains steadfast in favour of tutional supremacy, the rule of law, separation of powers, human rights and an independent judiciary has expressed serious dissat-isfaction with the govern-ment's actions in governing through ordinances. In a press release issued today, the association interpreted the issuance of an ordinance to amend the Constitutional Council Act contrary to the spirit of Article 284 of the Consti-tution as a step against the Constitution and parliamentary practice. The statement notes that issuing an ordinance by bypassing the parliamen-tary session is a violation of the sovereign rights of the people and the supremacy of Parliament. The association has al leged that the government, through the Constitutional Council, has recommended appointment in a manner that will have long-term ef-fects on the judiciary, and that such a move risks bring-ing the judiciary under the influence of the executive. The press release further mentions that using the temporary practice of ordi-nances as a regular political tool is contrary to democrat ic values and constitutional traditions. Additionally, it al-leges that such actions are an attempt to weaken the balance of power among the judiciary, legislature and ex-ecutive and to interfere with an independent judiciary. PETITIONS FILED, REJECTED Similarly, writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutional Council's rec-ommendation of Justice Sharma for the position of chief justice. Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi filed the petition, ar-guing that recommending a chief justice without regard for seniority appears to be contrary to the funda-mental vision of the Consti-constitution and constitutes a seri-ous interference with judi-cial independence. However, SC Spokesper-son Arjun Prasad Koirala stated that the three writ pe-titions filed by Advocate Gita Thapa, Advocate Dr Prem Raj Silwal, and Senior Advo-cate Tripathi challenging the Constitutional Council's rec-ommendation for chief jus-tice were refused by the apex court today. BASIS QUESTIONED The Judicial Council had sent the names of Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and Justices Kumar Regmi, Hari Prasad Phuyal, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Nahakul Subedi and Til Prasad Shrestha for the position of chief justice. However, the Constitutional Council bypassed the sen-iority order and recom-mended Sharma's name for chief justice. Members of the Constitutional Council, National As-sembly Chairman Narayan Prasad Dahal and the leader of the parliamentary party of the main opposition, Nepali Congress, Bhishmaraj Angdembe, had expressed their dissent regarding this decision. Even though the Supreme Court administra-tion refused to register the writs, the door for filing a pe-tition has not been closed. There is a provision where legal practitioners can sub-mit an application to the bench requesting the regis-tration of the writ. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's Secretariat clari-fied that the primary reason for recommending the chief justice was his track record of highest number of case disposals. The Secretariat contended that Justice Shar-ma was recommended chief justice as he handled the most cases (7,388) according to the Judiciary's Fourth Five-Year Strategic Plan. Nonetheless, it seems that Justice Til Prasad Shrestha handled the most number of cases in the fiscal years 2021-22 and 2023-24. Consequently, questions have arisen regarding whether it is appropriate to compare Justice Shrestha, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2021, with Justice Sharma, who was ap-pointed seven years ago, on the same grounds. Justice Sharma resolved 5,148 cases over the last three years, while Justice Shrestha re-solved 5,992 cases. If case disposal is to be used as a benchmark for merit, Shres-tha has disposed more cases than Sharma.