Officiating Chief Justice Orders Registration of Writ Against Chief Justice Recommendation Amid Growing Controversy

The Kathmandu Post reports on a significant judicial controversy unfolding in Nepal, where Officiating Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla has directly intervened in the process of appointing the next Chief Justice. By ordering the registration of a writ petition that had been initially rejected, Justice Malla has amplified a dispute that appears to expose deep divisions within the nation's highest court.

The core of the challenge lies in the Constitutional Council's recommendation of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, who is reportedly the fourth-ranked justice, bypassing more senior candidates. Petitioners argue this violates established constitutional norms, judicial conduct principles, and international human rights covenants. This move by the officiating chief justice, if it proceeds to a hearing, could set a crucial precedent for judicial appointments in Nepal.

“

We are seeing two courts.

The legal community and even Parliament are reacting strongly. The Nepal Bar Association has convened emergency meetings, with its president questioning the non-compliance with an order from the officiating chief justice. This situation raises serious questions about the judiciary's internal coherence and its ability to enforce its own directives. Lawmakers from the Rastriya Swatantra Party have also voiced objections, highlighting the political dimension of this judicial standoff.

From a Nepali perspective, this is not just a legal technicality but a matter of upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The public will be watching closely to see how these internal conflicts are resolved and whether the principles of seniority and due process in judicial appointments are respected. The refusal of court administration officials to immediately comply with Justice Malla's order further complicates the situation, suggesting potential resistance or internal disagreements that need urgent resolution.

“

We supported an independent judiciary but disagreed with actions that, in our view, exceeded legal practice and established norms.