It is one week since the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) decided to recommend to the full session of the parliament that it proceed to impeach those judges whose verdict had struck the name of the Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills off the blacklist of bank loan defaulters. While PAC has yet to submit its report to the House — a delay which should not have happened — a full court meeting of the judges of the Supreme Court on Friday reacted to the decision by reaching a consensus that it was beyond the PAC’s jurisdiction to review judgements of the SC. The meeting, holding that the PAC decision was also not in keeping with the procedure set by the House of Representatives Regulations, 2063, asked Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel and judge Min Bahadur Rayamajhi to discuss with Speaker Subas Nembang how to sort out the problem between the parliament and the court.

Undoubtedly, the PAC decision does not enjoy legal validity. But PAC took up the matter when the Speaker, who happens to be a Supreme Court advocate and a former general secretary of the Nepal Bar Association, asked it to investigate the case after he received a complaint from the five lending banks which sought impeachment against the judges concerned. This leaves room for doubters to question the Speaker’s decision, on the grounds that he could not have been ignorant of the proper procedure. On their part, the PAC members themselves have not claimed that their decision constitutes an impeachment action. Nevertheless, PAC, a parliamentary committee which can probe allegations of irregularities or lack of accountability of non-judicial public officials and bodies, holds considerable importance and its prestige is linked with that of the parliament itself. On the other hand, the dignity of the SC and the judiciary itself depends on that of its judges.

In this context, though the PAC decision is not legally binding, it has tremendous political and moral implications. The case has gone too far for anybody to dismiss it straight away without leaving both the legislature and the judiciary bruised. The question should therefore be not one of initiating or not initiating impeachment proceedings, but rather one of taking it to a logical conclusion — for the sake of the dignity of the judges concerned, of PAC, and of the parliament and the judiciary themselves. So any other understanding between the Speaker and the two representatives of the apex court alone could not take care of the likely public fallout. The Constitution stipulates that any judge facing impeachment will be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It means if the judges in question are found not guilty, they would be cleared. Positions such as those of judges owe much to public perception and to ethical considerations, not just to legal validity or otherwise of the accusations or charges against them. In the aftermath of the PAC decision, the moral authority of the judges concerned, and indirectly of the apex court itself, stands weakened. The parliament should therefore take up the case without delay, and save the dignity of the legislature and the judiciary.