The seniormost Supreme Court judge, Kedar Prasad Giri, currently officiating as Chief Justice, is passing through a tough parliamentary confirmation process. Appointment to certain constitutional posts can take place only after the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee (PHSC) confirms the nomination after examining the suitability of the nominees. However, unanimity of PHSC decision is required either to confirm or to reject the nomination. A divided verdict will send the nomination back to the Constitutional Council (CC), which recommends appointments to constitutional posts, and CC, chaired by the Prime Minister, can stand by its earlier decision or make a new recommendation. The confirmation process, instituted for the first time with the promulgation of the Interim Constitution (IC), is therefore a new one, and so far, not many nominees have been vetted.

The nominees for the Election Commission were the first to face parliamentary hearing, followed by apex court judges. Both batches were cleared without a hitch. That does not, however, mean that the records of all of them were without a blemish. Indeed, the vetting should be rigorous and somewhat protracted according to need. But the 15-day time limit is often too short for PHSC to initiate and wrap up the whole process and do justice to the confirmation system at once. Giri has been summoned to appear before PHSC today to give ‘clarification’ before it makes its decision. He was called after a sub-committee concluded that some of the complaints, out of 16, against Giri were “serious”. These include: he was loyal to the royal regime, he did not protect the right of FM stations to air news during the king’s rule, PAC had recommended his impeachment in the Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills case, he had transferred public land to individuals’ names, he committed financial irregularities, and he favoured the king-held civic polls.

Undoubtedly, the seniormost judge should automatically become the first candidate for Chief Justice. But the first candidate should also meet other eligibility criteria. First of all, the Chief Justice must be above public suspicion. The charges against Giri should be carefully examined, and if he is found guilty on any of the counts cited above, he will forfeit his moral right to the highest judicial post, all the more so in the kind of democratic system ushered in by Jana Andolan II. PHSC has to decide before this weekend, and it also owes an explanation to the public for its decision, whatever it may be. But even if the verdict happens to be a split one, CC must not go against majority opinion, as it would constitute disrespect for the parliament. Nobody who generates public controversy about his professional and moral uprightness should be allowed to occupy exalted government posts. Top appointments are not mere questions of a majority or minority verdict of a parliamentary committee. In Nepal, there is also a need to develop the healthy practice of nominees withdrawing their claim after they have given rise to sufficient public suspicion of their suitability.