Public accountability of the judiciary has been a topic of discussion in Nepal from time to time, all the more so because of the controversial decisions the Nepali judiciary has at times handed down, besides the general perception that it has left much to be desired in the way of justice dispensation, impartiality, professional courage and individual probity. In this context, the remarks made on Monday by judge Anup Raj Sharma, the second in seniority in the Supreme Court, are pertinent - he has stressed the judiciary’s public, though indirect, accountability. He said that the judiciary does not need to be accountable to the political forces, because this would make it play into their hands. In fact, it falls within the constitutional duty of the judiciary not to yield to any extraneous influences either from the political or other quarters.

Leaving aside the pre-1990 days of the shackled judiciary, it has been independent ever since. It is another matter that the judiciary could not live up to its constitutional role in the eye of the public. Judges, when it came to finding reasons, may have found various scapegoats for the judiciary’s not-so-enviable public image. But, for this, they have nobody but themselves to blame, by and large. In a way, judge Sharma’s remarks, though relevant, could also be taken to imply that the judiciary has come under considerable political influence at various periods since 1990. The judiciary’s role has been clearly spelled out — if it goes in all sincerity and seriousness by the constitution and the other laws in so far as they conform to the letter and spirit of the constitution, their job will have been widely appreciated. No further ado is then needed to establish the judges’ sense of public accountability.

Several factors have combined to compromise the Nepali judiciary’s public image - e.g., accusations of judicial corruption, wide perception of a number of judicial decisions having been inconsistent, its failure to punish those in positions of authority who have not complied with its decisions or orders, or against those officials who have lied to it, several cases where it was widely seen to be less than impartial or to lack mettle, for example, in its failure to stop constitutional breakdown and to stop the then king from usurping power and retaining it until the success of Jana Andolan II. Improvement in areas such as these will have to come from within the judiciary itself. As for job security, the Nepali judges are among the most secure in the world, and when it comes to the apex court judges, only a two-thirds majority could remove any of them; however, any move to impeach a judge in the past fell through because of the bitter rivalry between the ruling and opposition parties, or because of a secret deal. Judge Sharma’s suggestion for making the Judicial Council more effective at taking action against corrupt judges deserves the utmost attention of those who can contribute to that end. In the meantime, the question also arises whether the existing legal provisions have been fully exploited to combat corruption and other anomalies within the judiciary.