Nepal Communist Party (NCP)-affiliated National Lawyers Association candidate for president of the Nepal Bar Association Chandeshwar Shrestha won the presidency of the lawyers’ umbrella body. NLA candidates won 22 of the 25 seats of the NBA executive committee. Shrestha says he will make efforts to develop NBA as a professional organisation so that it can effectively play its role of a watchdog to protect human rights, ensure the rule of law, promote lawyers’ interests and enhance their professional skills. Ram Kumar Kamat of The Himalayan Times caught up with the new NBA president to know about the plans he will implement in the NBA. Excerpts:

What ensured your victory?

I had given the slogan of making the NBA a professional organisation without favouring or discriminating against anybody. I also pledged to protect and promote the lawyers’ interests by providing them with training on sectoral issues. I think my slogan struck a chord with lawyers of all groups. Lawyers associated with NCP-affiliated National Lawyers Association, Nepali Congress-affiliated Democratic Lawyers’ Association and other political parties and independent lawyers who cared for professionalism in the NBA voted for me. I think lawyers realised that NBA needed a leader like me who cares only for professional development of lawyers.

Will you be able to bridge the political gap between the lawyers?

My message to the legal fraternity is that the election sentiment is over now and all the members of the NBA are one on matters of professional development of our umbrella organisation and its members. My approach will be to take decision collectively on how we can protect and promote interests of lawyers across the country and how we can help protect human rights and ensure the rule of law.

What do you think led to the defeat of most of the DLA candidates?

The outgoing executive committee was led by lawyers affiliated to DLA and I think the incumbent office bearers’ failure to take professional stance on key issues, including the former CJ Gopal Parajuli’s date of birth controversy, and issues that affect fair and speedy delivery of justice were the main reasons behind their defeat. The outgoing NBA leadership failed to play the role of a watchdog against anomalies seen in the judiciary and I think this was another reason for their defeat. But the election is over and the NBA is not politically divided. If the NBA has to play its role effectively, it must remain a professional and an academic body and my effort will be to ensure that.

Judges’ nominations always become controversial. What should be done to end this?

We need to formulate strategic policies to make our roles more effective in the days ahead and we also need to prepare a roaster of lawyers who can be recommended for judges. In the past, the NBA failed to nominate a lawyer for Supreme Court justice and I think it should not repeat such mistakes in the future.

Should the structure of Judicial Council be changed to prevent political influence while nominating judges? Judges’ conference recently vouched for judges’ majority in the JC. Do you agree?

Judicial Council was formed with an objective of recommending judges more fairly without allowing the leadership of the judiciary to take arbitrary decisions. Participation of lawyers, one recommended by the NBA and one from the prime minister, was ensured in the JC to strike a balance. When JC had two lawyers  — Basudev Dhungana and Moti Kaji Sthapit — as its members, nobody raised questions against its decisions, but people began to raise questions against the JC in subsequent years as the members failed to take impartial and fair decisions. If the leadership of the judiciary and NBA is strong, then the judges’ recommendation will be fair and nobody could raise questions against JC’s nomination. We should not seek to change the structure of JC every time questions are raised against its decision.  If the structure of the JC has to be changed, then the constitution will have to be amended and I do not think constitution will be easily amended and even if it is amended, we cannot say for sure what kind of new structure will be put in place.

How can JC be kept free of political influence?

The major question that we need to deal with is to ensure that judges are nominated in a professional manner. None of the JC members should indulge in favouritism for any reason. The current nomination of five SC justices also became controversial and I think if the leadership of the judiciary is strong, such controversies can be easily averted. The NBA should also make a roster of possible nominees in a transparent manner.  Most of the problems that we see today in the judiciary can be overcome if judges are nominated from roster in transparent manner. The roster should be updated from time to time and a person who may be at the top of the roster today may be dropped to the bottom in the future. If judges remain committed to their professional integrity, no middleman can dare to influence them. Lawyers should also make sure that they do not try to win cases by hook or by crook. When they make such attempts, they end up indulging in wrong practices. Nepal Bar Council should also play an active role in ensuring professional integrity among lawyers by formulating clear plans and polices to maintain professionalism. Lawyers Academy Act should be enacted to enhance professional skills of lawyers.

I think those who want to become judges should be purely professional, driven by inner desire to serve justice rather than being driven by a desire to gain monetary benefits.

Lawyers should not focus on making money because if they make earning   money their primary goal, their chances of indulging in wrong practices will be high.  Lawyers should tell their clients that they will try their best to win cases, but they cannot ensure that they will win cases.

If lawyers’ professional capacity is enhanced, that would also contribute to the broader goal of justice delivery.

I think NBA should also tell universities to update their syllabus to make their courses compatible with demands of changing times. We also need to think seriously about striking a balance between demand and supply in legal field. Over production of lawyers should not be encouraged. I heard that 12,000 students wanted to enrol for law course at Nepal Law Campus, which can take up to 500 students. Not only universities, but also the government should look into such problems.

Areas where lawyers can deliver their services should also be expanded to make them employed. All those places that require the service of lawyers should treat lawyers with dignity. If you go to land revenue offices, you will find that lawyers and legal professionals are not treated with dignity and respect. Our teams made this issue an election plank and we are going to address this issue.   I think the NBA has a lot of responsibility to shoulder.

Recently the Judicial Council took action against some judges, particularly those of Biratnagar High Court who passed ‘erroneous order’ in gold smuggling case. While such action in certain cases is justified, don’t you think that it could also scare judges?

If a judge passes erroneous orders and verdicts unknowingly then there are accepted methods to correct them, but if they fail to show minimum capability to shoulder their duty then the Judicial Council should definitely take action against them. If judges are deficient of minimum capability to dispense justice, then transferring them to remote places cannot be a solution because they would repeat their mistakes in the remote places as well. If judges are inefficient, then efforts should also be made through the Judicial Academy to enhance their efficiency.  If a judge intentionally passes erroneous order, then action should be taken against him/her.  The way the gold smuggling case is being prolonged in the court is unfortunate.

Questions about the government exercising influence in political cases are raised very often. Do you think judges are influenced by the government?

The Supreme Court can review its verdicts. Judges should dispense justice as per the law and the constitution. They may face pressure from politicians, power centres and religious leaders, but they should act freely and fearlessly. To determine whether or not a judge succumbed to any pressure, we must have a proper mechanism to review court verdicts and orders. Then only can we know that a certain judgment was not based on principle of justice and the judges, who passed the order and verdict, might have been influence by some groups or powerful individuals.

You are a left leaning lawyer. Can you resist pressure from this left government that commands two-thirds majority in Parliament?

I have been in legal profession for the last 43 years. Ever since I joined the legal profession, I have also been active politically. There were times in the Panchayat era when I championed the cause of democracy, seeking the downfall of monarchy, but my political ideology did not prevent me from playing a professional role. Some of my friends would oppose me for not acting as per my political ideology in the NBA, but I did not care about them because I have always valued professionalism in the lawyers’ organisation. The point that I am trying to make is that as NBA president, I may face pressure from the government or other sections of society, but I am sure I’ll not falter on my commitment to make NBA a professional organisation free from any undue pressure. If anybody wants to toe a political ideology in the NBA, then they should not seek to be an office bearer of the lawyers’ umbrella body. I won’t compromise on my professional ideals and integrity.