Nepal’s Chief Justice Cholendra S.J.B. Rana has been under pressure from the legal fraternity, a large section of the media and some politicians to resign before his term expires this year, amidst cries that the sanctity of the court will not be maintained otherwise.
Chief Justice Rana’s own colleagues in the Supreme Court of Nepal are also defying him and have stalled hearings, bringing the country’s judicial system to a complete standstill in what is an unprecedented chain of events in Nepal’s recent judicial history.
Yet, to date, charges against Justice Rana are not specific.
Justice Rana has maintained that as he was elevated to the Chief Justice’s position through a constitutional process, there is no question of him resigning under pressure. He has challenged his opponents to use constitutional measures to remove him.
Notably, impeachment is the only way to remove the Chief Justice if he refuses to resign voluntarily.
A key charge levelled against Justice Rana is that he has forged understandings with political parties to appoint his relatives in the cabinet and other constitutional bodies. He is also accused of indefinitely postponing the hearings of cases related to appointments in constitutional bodies to suit his needs.
As yet, there are no concrete pieces of evidence to prove these charges. His colleagues in court have not spoken publicly but have been expressing their frustrations to reporters. Amidst a growing call for their participation, political parties, both in the government and in the opposition, have not taken a position on this matter and have stated that this is an internal matter of the Nepal Supreme Court.
The point at which Justice Rana started to face criticism was after he led the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal which delivered the verdict of reinstating the parliament, directing the office of the President to appoint Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba within 26 hours, removing the chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), K.P. Sharma Oli, who was at the helm since 2018.
Also read: Court Verdict Brings Nepali Parliament Back on Track But Uncertainty Still Looms
Since then, Oli has been criticising Justice Rana and the other judges in the bench, stating that the court went beyond its jurisdiction with this decision. Opposition party leaders have also alleged that there could be a possible nexus between the judiciary and the new coalition government led by Nepali Congress’s Deuba. As main opposition leader, Oli has been unrelenting in his criticism of the judiciary and has now said that the whole bench of five judges should resign en mass.
The latest episode began with local media reports alleging Justice Rana had pressed the coalition government to appoint his relative in the Deuba cabinet. Media reports suggest that PM Deuba was forced to appoint one Gajendra Hamal as a result. Following increasing pressure, Hamal resigned two days after he was appointed. Justice Rana has said that Hamal is an old face in the Nepali Congress party and did not need his support to become a minister in the first place.
Nepalese Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Photo: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar/Files
With the legal fraternity eager to see Justice Rana go, the Nepal Bar Association, an umbrella organisation of lawyers across the country, has launched public protests with the same demand as well. In editorials on newspapers, some of which appear one-sided, Justice Rana is being asked to step down as well. Then there is the judges’ strike.
Protests by the Bar Association are not surprising but protests by a large section of a Chief Justice’s colleagues are a serious matter.
According to local media reports, Justice Rana has reportedly conveyed to his colleagues that he wants a graceful exit but it is unclear what this ‘graceful exit’ entails.
With the restoration of democracy in 1990, Nepal’s judiciary has grown increasingly political. Before that, too, there was an influence of the monarchy in the court but judges were not known to be divided along political lines. As politicians’ influence grew in the judiciary, judges started to knock the doors of political parties for personal and professional gains as well.
According to the Nepal constitution, the Nepal president shall appoint the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council, and other judges of the Supreme Court of Nepal, on the recommendation of the Judicial Council.
It is widely believed that only the judges of the Supreme Court of Nepal, but even the judges of the high and district courts in the country are appointed on the basis of understandings among political parties. Meetings between judges of courts and politicians are often reported in the media. There are also instances in which senior advocates who play an active role in politics get key appointments in Nepal’s courts.
In recent years, vital political issues have reached courts. Political parties either try to influence judges to produce verdicts in their favour or try to use the impeachment threat. Even the topmost rung of political leaders have demeaned the judiciary publicly.
Kamal Dev Bhattarai is a Kathmandu-based journalist and writer.
