After the recent nominations of several justices for the Supreme Court, the attention of those concerned with the filling of the vacancies for judges of the appellate courts, now numbering over four dozen, have set in motion a sort of debate over the qualities that one should look for in potential judges. The appointments to the appellate courts will leave a number of vacancies in the district courts as well. This kind of change of mood is a positive development in that in the past there was barely any public discussion of such kind. This is largely due to the raised public consciousness that has taken place over the past few years, all the more so following Jana Andolan II. It is a good thing that Chief Justice Kedar Prasad Giri, who is the chairman of the Judicial Council (JC) charged with nominating the judges of appellate and district courts, has started discussions with the attorney general as well as with the representatives of such organisations as the Nepal Bar Association (NBA), the Nepal Bar Council (NBC), and the Tribhuvan University Faculty of Law on the principles to be applied to the selection of judges.

During a recent JC meeting, some members suggested reforming the appointment process by introducing transparency and upholding quality, in light of growing public complaints over the performance of the judiciary. The minimum qualifications for a judge as stipulated in the Constitution or the laws are taken for granted. But beyond that, others are no less important. Personal probity of the candidates is the first condition. This aspect has often been ignored while appointing judges at any level of the judiciary. A judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. Financial integrity is a major part of personal probity. This calls for a thorough inquiry into wealth accumulation of hopefuls beyond their known sources of income. But this requires keeping constant and reliable records.

Another necessary factor is the level of the quality of judgements the candidates have handed down in the past. It has often been alleged, for example, that the courts, or even the same judges, have delivered two contrary verdicts on two similar cases. This should seriously compromise the potential candidates’ suitability for appointment. But, no comparative study of the verdicts has been conducted in any detail so far. Without taking the above two factors into account, other principles alone cannot boost the credibility and the quality of Nepali judges and the judiciary. A credible confirmation system should also be introduced for appointment in all the three tiers of the judiciary. If anything unsavoury comes to light about the candidates, it should invariably be held against them. Judges are supposed to be impartial, and the element of prejudice present in the candidates should also be factored in. Besides, their length and level of experience, extra academic qualifications, and other attributes of their personal or professional behaviour, not least their independence of mind and their courage, should be taken into account, including their various past and present affiliations. The principles should be meant for implementation, not for cosmetic purposes.