Chief Justice Hari Prasad Sharma’s avowal to uphold independence of the judiciary on the occasion of the Law Day is an attempt to put at rest the controversy triggered by his statement in Australia about the efficacy of February 1 move. But let it not be forgotten that it is precisely the duty of a chief justice to safeguard the sanctity and independence of the judiciary for which he need not be overly defensive about. That is one mandate the Constitution is absolutely clear about. Sharma and anyone occupying that esteemed position must acknowledge that the chief justice cannot carry on in public as though his call of duty were of a political nature. That at least was the first impression he created soon after his appointment to the top judicial slot.

Sharma was responding to a suggestion from the Supreme Court justices that he better clarify the level of his commitment to the present Constitution and democracy. The concerns raised by the Nepal Bar Council and other legal professionals sometime back were also too serious to be sidelined. Let there be no doubt about the fact that the furore inflicted a lot of collateral damage to the judiciary. But it would, however, be foolhardy to keep on hounding the Chief Justice on that count when there are other serious issues the judiciary has to tackle to make it more credible and efficient, reinforcing the public’s faith in its ability to dispense justice. The fences have now been mended. There is no sense in wasting precious time and energy on tweaking the same old issue again.

The judges have also sought Sharma’s position in reviewing the plea over the issue of the restoration of the House of Representatives. That seems to be setting the stage for a final verdict on the contentious issue of House revival even though earlier judgement had rejected the idea. The Chief Justice can expedite justice dispensation on cases like this one. The judiciary, as everyone knows, is backlogged with work but that realisation alone will not stop people from seeking justice. New cases add up to the workload, ultimately leading to delays in disposing cases. The Chief Justice could use his clout to expedite justice dispensation, instead of wasting time and energy on reiterating the obvious merely to pacify critics.