The Supreme Court is likely to renew its old suggestion to the government that the number of appellate courts should be reduced from the present 16. A committee headed by a senior justice of the apex court, Dilip Kumar Paudel, is working towards this end. The courts with the least workload may be axed. The appellate courts in Ilam, Dhankuta, Okhaldhunga, Jumla, Mahendranagar, Surkhet, Tulsipur and Baglung have few cases. Some of the appellate courts cover only two districts. The argument in favour of the cut is that manpower and other resources have been lying idle with little return on the investment made by the government. Until 1996, there were 11 appellate courts, and the number was increased, it is alleged, more for political considerations than for the need for justice. In 1999 the apex court had recommended that the number should be brought down to 11 again, but the suggestion was never carried out.

The Maoist insurgency has been cited as the main cause of the few cases being registered in the courts. At present, 19 district courts have fewer than 40 cases each. Some appellate courts are said to have only about a dozen cases each; and those in Jumla and Okhaldhunga have no case registered at all. The idea of cutting costs and transferring human and physical resources from such courts to the heavily burdned ones appears logical. According to the Judicial Administration Act 1991, the cabinet has the sole authority to increase or decrease the number of appellate courts; however, those in the judiciary tend to think that the decision should better be made on the recommendation of the judiciary.

If the insurgency is the main reason, then any cut in the number of the appellate courts is likely to give rise to some serious questions. In several remote districts, the administrative branch of the government similarly has much less work than in the relatively developed districts, should one then suggest that the administrative offices there should be axed or shifted? If 11 appellate courts are to be recommended, for example, then one can easily ask why the number should not be 10 or 12. The State cannot afford to vacate its offices just because of the insurgency. The government cannot go by cost-benefit analysis alone, it has to take into account many other factors. Dissatisfied with the verdict of the district court, many litigants may want to go to the appellate court; but fewer appellate courts would mean much bother and expense for them. If each district is alloted a court, why should the 14 zones not be given an appellate court each? If their number is to be decided on the basis of the number of districts covered by each of them, then the present administrative division of zones should come up for a review.