It is not acceptable for the discussions of the president of a political party and the acting chief justice to come out openly, which can unnecessarily drag the justice system into controversy. It would thus be appropriate for the acting chief justice to not lead the bench on this matter of appointing the constitutional officers
It isn't wise to bring controversy in the judiciary by any means. But sadly, most rumours and arguments arising on the media today seem to revolve around matters relating to the courts and the legal systems, especially the Supreme Court and its judges. First and foremost, parties such as the preceding government, the current coalition government and others acting from behind the curtains with selfish motives are taking the lead in stirring up rumours and conflicts by using the media. Others are making use of it for experiments/tests and entering the Supreme Court via the test cases, then creating disputes within. This deed is heinous and reprehensible.
Recently, the full judgment on the interim order given by the single bench in advocate Ganesh Regmi's writ cleared many things for some, but proved difficult for others to digest it. Similarly, regarding the tender for the construction of a new building of the Supreme Court, the several correspondences between the Supreme Court and the CIAA found their way in the media. The way it was publicised and the impact that this can have on how the general public views a respected body like the Supreme Court are worrying topics for everyone.
In the same way, since the past year, the constitutional bench has repeatedly sat on the writ petitions relating to the 52 officials appointed to the Constitutional Commission, and word has spread that their appointment would be annulled by the court. It isn't sensible to circulate news reports indicating that the acting chief justice would surely reject the appointments. It is also not acceptable for the discussions of the president of a political party and the acting chief justice to come out openly, which can unnecessarily drag the justice system into controversy. It would thus be appropriate for the acting chief justice to not lead the bench on this matter of appointing the constitutional officers.
If we seriously study and understand the parliamentary state system adopted by us or even the state management practices by the world's different state systems, the executive head, who exercises the right entrusted on him to run the state administration with the mandate of the sovereign people, can choose and appoint people in accordance with the constitution and laws for five years to fulfill the obligations entrusted to him by the people.
In addition, when there is a need for a law in the constitution and when the law-making body, the parliament, is not active, the government can enact laws through ordinances and implement such ordinances in accordance with the law and appoint constitutional officials in accordance with the constitution and laws. To say that such constitutional officials have been appointed against the law is not in line with the context of the country's constitution.
But the fact that the country has been run in an unconstitutional and illegal pattern, as the constitutional and legal bodies are bound to follow the decisions made by unconstitutional and illegal institutions, is a matter of serious concern. The five-party coalition, which is neither recognised by the constitution nor addressed by the law, when allowed to decide the span of the parliament and tenure of its members and make other important decisions, might have serious consequences in the long run.
If the coalition and the politicians involved continue to perform activities in their favour, such as reshuffling the cabinet at will, increasing the number of ministries, misusing the nation's funds for their own benefits in order to protect and stabilise their power and leadership, disregarding the issues of inflation, taking no measures to minimise the loss due to natural calamities, and delaying the provision of relief to flood and landslide victims, it would be the greatest misfortune for the helpless but hopeful common people.
How could the Nepali citizens call these politicians their representatives? How can they feel the presence of the government, let alone receiving support, when the change they were hoping for have never turned into reality? With these prevailing issues and observed outcomes, how will the upcoming elections go? Amidst all the possibilities and speculations, it is quite obvious that this coalition is not a good sign for the country.
Nepali Congress leader Min Bishwakarma was recently interviewed by television journalist Thakur Belbase to clarify the necessity of the coalition. He stated that the coalition trend had begun from 2046 BS and advanced till 2062/63 BS, leading to the establishment of the republic. Also that the constitution introduced in 2072 BS was the output document of the concurrent coalition agreement. This coalition is said to have a definite goal, and it is to last as long as the goal is achieved. The only person, according to Bishwakarma, who could thoroughly guide and accomplish the goals of the coalition is the president of the Nepali Congress, Sher Bahadur Deuba. We are still not aware of the targets this coalition is meant to fulfill or how it will contribute for good. The lingering uncertainty has raised questions among the general public at present.
In conclusion, strict laws should be introduced for all leaders of the political parties, people who are leading the government in constitutional positions, journalists, lawyers and judges to respect, believe and trust in the judiciary and not write or speak in a way that creates confusion and drags down the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the general public.
In addition, there should be legal provision to have anyone appointed as an honourable judge to make public their assets or submit an account of their assets to the Judicial Council, and also do the same immediately after they quit office. The legal system should also allow the property to be investigated in suspicious cases so that the judiciary can remain unchallenged and the legacy of people's faith can be maintained.
A version of this article appears in the print on August 12, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.
