DistantNews
Support us
🇳🇵 Nepal /Crime & Justice

Nepal Judicial Council to prioritize judges for Supreme Court, ending direct lawyer appointments

From Kathmandu Post · () English

Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources New plan
  • Nepal's Judicial Council is moving to prioritize career judges for Supreme Court appointments, potentially ending the direct appointment of private lawyers.
  • This change follows a 2021 report highlighting issues like subjectivity, political influence, and nepotism in the judicial appointment process.
  • The council aims for a more transparent system to address persistent questions about political maneuvering in selecting top court justices.

Nepal's Judicial Council is set to overhaul its Supreme Court appointment process, signaling a significant shift away from directly appointing private legal practitioners. Sources indicate the council is preparing to prioritize judges with experience in district and high courts for upcoming vacancies, a move that could end a long-standing practice.

This potential change comes in the wake of a critical 2021 report by then Supreme Court Justice Hari Krishna Karki. The report detailed deep-seated problems within the judicial appointment system, including subjective considerations, opaque processes, and political interference that often overshadowed constitutional criteria. It recommended a comprehensive assessment based on seniority, experience, legal knowledge, integrity, and contribution to the field.

To ensure that the persistent questions and allegations of political maneuvering and partisan influence do not surface this time around, we are actively discussing the implementation of an appointment style that is distinctly different and more transparent than past practices.

— A current member of the councilSpeaking on condition of anonymity about the Judicial Council's deliberations on changing appointment practices.

The report also explicitly identified nepotism, favoritism, political patronage, and quota-sharing among major parties as detrimental factors. In some instances, individuals lacking constitutional qualifications and sufficient judicial experience were recommended for appointment, raising serious concerns about the judiciary's impartiality and competence.

I am learning.

— Newly appointed Supreme Court justiceResponding to a senior colleague after being directly appointed from private practice about seven years ago.

Against this backdrop, the council is actively discussing a new approach. "To ensure that the persistent questions and allegations of political maneuvering and partisan influence do not surface this time around, we are actively discussing the implementation of an appointment style that is distinctly different and more transparent than past practices," a council member stated, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the deliberations.

The member recalled an anecdote from about seven years ago when numerous private lawyers were directly appointed to the Supreme Court. One new justice, having recently transitioned from private practice, admitted to still learning the ropes after just a month on the bench. A senior colleague reportedly responded, "The Supreme Court is not a place to learn," highlighting the perceived need for prior judicial experience.

The Supreme Court is not a place to learn.

— A senior judicial colleagueResponding to a newly appointed Supreme Court justice who had recently transitioned from private practice.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Kathmandu Post in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog