A panel of four lawyers commissioned by the Supreme Court Bar Association has come up with plans for reforming the judiciary. In the panel’s view, judges have so far been appointed mainly through ‘nepotism, favouritism and political ideology’. Its recommendations are aimed at boosting public confidence in the judiciary. That is, in itself, an admission that people’s faith in the judicial branch of the state leaves much to be desired. The panel’s report suggests conducting exams to determine fitness for positions of district and appellate court judges and an interview for the post of Chief Justice. The panel defends the system of parliamentary hearing for judges because it thinks this process ‘can check nepotism and favouritism’, adding, however, that experts, rather than MPs, should conduct the hearing. Accordingly, Chief Justice Kedar Prasad Giri has formed a committee to study the report to look for ways of reforming the judiciary.

The exam and interview ideas are indeed worth considering. But there are other factors that cannot be ignored if delivery of justice is to be improved. Performance of the candidates in their existing positions should also count, as exam and interview can judge only one or two aspects of the composite of qualities judges should possess. This calls for a sound performance evaluation system, which is still not in place. Professional competence is important, but moral integrity is even more so. Certain minimum eligibility criteria already exist for judges in all the tiers of the judiciary. Therefore, it is unlikely that a judge’s candidate will be hopeless on technical grounds, thought it is quite likely that better alternatives are available. But the lack of moral uprightness can easily render any professional qualifications into a liability. A judge prone to favours or pecuniary attractions will lose his impartiality and objectivity, thus defeating the purpose of justice dispensation.

Courage and independence of mind are no less important. In Nepali judiciary, it has sometimes been seen that judges regarded as technically sound and possessing a favourable image of financial honesty have been unable to shine for lack of these qualities. In addition, seniority should constitute a significant factor in deciding the posting or promotion of judges, though it alone cannot be considered a complete virtue. The panel’s idea that a law minister should possess legal knowledge is sensible, all the more so because he holds various other positions by virtue of his office, such as membership of the Constitutional Council and

the Judicial Council. Similarly, reform proposals for the various quasi-judicial bodies strike the

right notes. Particularly praiseworthy is the suggestion for slapping double penalty on judges found indulging in irregularities, a concept applied by Yudhisthira in the epic Mahabharata while pronouncing a verdict on four offenders. But, all this requires an effective mechanism that can initiate action against anybody in the judiciary on prima facie evidence. Without this, the edifice of all the other recommendations would come crashing down.