The accusation and counter-accusation between the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) and the Supreme Court (SC) over issues of vital importance is a sure sign of the Nepali judiciary’s failing health. The NBA on Monday demanded the resignation of Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel and the SC’s newly appointed ad hoc judge, Pawan Kumar Ojha, on the grounds that they were “incompetent” in protecting the Constitution and that the appointment of four ad hoc judges of the apex court, including Ojha, on the recommendation of the Judicial Council (JC) headed by the Chief Justice, reflected a ‘nexus with the government.’ But an emergency meeting of full court on Tuesday, attended by 23 judges, objected to the NBA’s demand, stating that it was the job of the JC to select the judges and that the NBA had no role in the selection process.

On his part, CJ Paudel asked, “Where did the NBA get the authority to label me as incompetent?, which is vested in a two-thirds parliamentary majority”. The apex court urged the NBA to be “constructive” and not “create hurdles” to justice dispensation. Undoubtedly, as CJ Paudel said, the NBA’s decision is not legally binding, but it certainly raises moral questions as regards the judges concerned. Besides, the NBA and many others have questioned the wisdom of the judges in keeping pending for over three years a review petition of high importance seeking the restoration of the very House, which CJ Paudel prefers to refer to in his defence. In the absence of the House, the elected NBA office-bearers are expected to act also as a watchdog for the Constitution, or else the NBA, too, would have to share the blame for the assaults on the Constitution.

The NBA argues that the appointment of Ojha, the outgoing attorney general, does not provide any ground to trust that the judiciary would be performing independently, given his public stances on the Constitution, such as that the King is not bound by it. It was on the suggestion of the CJ himself that the NBA had nominated five senior advocates for the posts, but none of them made it. The merits of each side apart, the main casualty of this tussle has been the public faith in the judiciary. Besides, such a grave charge formally made by the lawyers’ national body puts high responsibility on the judges concerned and they, in all dignity, should respond. Certainly, the prolongation of the tussle, e.g. boycott of the bench and contempt of court, would do little credit to the reputation of the judiciary, because the court and its judges should be seen to be above suspicion.