The Supreme Court has sentenced 17 persons to three months in prison and fined them Rs.1,000 each for contempt of court. According to the brief text of the judgement delivered on Sunday, they had chanted slogans against the judges, calling for ‘death sentence’ against them, as well as the resignation of the Chief Justice. A two-member bench stated that there was no need for further evidence against those persons because the judges themselves had seen them chanting the slogans in the courtroom and ‘attempting to vandalise it’. This unpleasant courtroom incident had happened during the hearing of a writ petition against Chamati Land Integrated Project, Naya Bazar. This carrot-and-stick judgement has given the convicts a two months’ vacation after their completion of fifteen days’ detention, which they have already nearly completed. There is a condition, however, the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of which decides whether the convicts get a waiver of two of the three months of their jail term. To qualify for the offer, they will have to come back and serve another 15-day term.

This kind of judgement is a novelty in Nepal. But the apex court has made its point — no one can get away with contempt of court. Besides, the court has sounded lenient by offering a cut in sentence. It also wants to demonstrate that the convicts have obeyed the court verdict of their own accord and that disobedience will harm the interests of convicts or the accused themselves. The seventeen committed a clear offence of contempt, and appropriate punishment is only natural. Almost everywhere, the judges hear contempt cases themselves, though one or more of them may happen to be a party to such cases. In Nepal, many judges have shown their frailties in not living up to the public or professional expectations in matters of objectivity, fairness and impartiality. At least, the Nepali judiciary and some of the judges have faced such accusations from time to time.

At present, the judiciary is authorised to formulate its own procedure for deciding what constitutes contempt and what does not. But clarity is good for justice. For instance, calling any particular judge corrupt must draw a contempt charge, but the accusation that there is a lot of corruption in the judiciary should not. Legal provisions should not be vague or give way to varied interpretations. Suppose if a person was to face a contempt case on the vague charge of ‘undermining public faith in the judiciary’, unpleasant results might ensue for justice, because any criticism of a judge or the judiciary could well be interpreted to constitute this offence. But, ultimately, it is the judges and their conduct, their integrity, and their professionalism that will lift or lower the judiciary’s reputation, not anybody’s criticism or accusation. To keep these things right, the Nepali judiciary has still a long way to go. The judges, on the whole, should also do some soul-searching. Regarding contempt of court, there is need for a separate legislation so that the guilty may get appropriate punishment, without in any way restricting the individual’s right to criticise responsibly bad things in the judiciary or the judges, their general tendency, or the merits or demerits of any legal judgement.