Nepal bypasses acting CJ, fourth-in-line picked to lead the judiciary

The recent decision by Nepal's Constitutional Council to appoint Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma as the 33rd Chief Justice has stirred considerable debate, as it breaks with a seven-decade-old tradition of prioritizing seniority in judicial appointments. The council, led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah, recommended Sharma, who is the fourth-ranking judge in the Supreme Court, bypassing three senior justices, including acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla.

“

We had reservations about the disregard for seniority. We have in writing submitted our written objection to the Constitutional Council.

This departure from established practice has not gone unnoticed. Two members of the six-member council registered their dissent, citing reservations about the disregard for seniority and the violation of procedures. They have formally submitted their objections in writing, emphasizing that tradition and established norms should not be lightly overturned. The prime minister, however, defended the decision by arguing that merit, expertise, and judicial capability should be paramount in such appointments, suggesting that seniority alone is not a sufficient criterion.

“

tradition alone cannot justify appointments. He said that merit, expertise, and judicial capability must also be considered in the selection process.

Legal experts and the Nepal Bar Association have voiced concerns about the implications of this decision. Professor Bipin Adhikari from Kathmandu University School of Law noted that while not constitutionally prohibited, bypassing senior justices without compelling, institutionally justified reasons could open the door to executive influence within the judiciary. This, he warned, might lead to a climate of caution among judges, fearing that their career progression could be jeopardized by their verdicts. The Nepal Bar Association has expressed shock and has called for a meeting to decide its official stance, highlighting the widespread unease within the legal fraternity.

“

while there is no constitutional or legal restriction on appointing someone other than the senior-most justice as the chief of the judiciary, there must be rare, institutionally justified reasons for doing so. “I don’t see strong reasons for this departure,”

From a Nepali perspective, the independence and integrity of the judiciary are crucial pillars of democracy. While the emphasis on merit is understandable, the abrupt departure from a long-standing tradition of seniority raises questions about the underlying motives and potential consequences. The debate reflects a broader tension in Nepal between upholding established norms and embracing reforms that prioritize efficiency and perceived merit. The appointment of Justice Sharma will be closely watched to see how it impacts judicial independence and public trust in the justice system, especially given the concerns raised about potential executive overreach.

“

We are shocked by the council’s decision. A meeting of the Bar advisory committee has been called for Friday to decide its official position