Tussle between executive and judiciary

Prime Minister Balendra (Balen) Shah’s decision, a few days ago, to recommend the fourth-in-line justice, Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma, as Nepal’s next chief justice has been the talk of the town and become unending debate over the judicial independence. His supporters and well-wishers take the move as a long-overdue challenge to the deep-rooted culture of political bargaining and setting in the state affairs including judiciary. 

 

Some constitutional experts argue that seniority should not become a rigid and an untouchable rule. The Constitution does not require the senior-most justice to become chief justice. Balen’s recommendation for Sharma as the next Chief Justice considering the political connections of Malla, Regmi and Phuyal has been welcomed by the larger populations. Some constitutional experts opine that Malla had been a Constituent Assembly member on a UML ticket, while Phuyal had served as attorney general during UML rule and Regmi is close to the Nepali Congress, whereas Sharma does not seem to be directly connected to any political parties. 

The recommendation of Sharma over senior-most Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla has become politically hot debate considering a long-standing convention within the nation’s judiciary. Although the constitution does not legally require the senior-most justice to become the chief justice, however, the principle of seniority to be nominated as the chief justice was the normal procedure in the past of the judiciary. How the relationship between the executive and judiciary in the case of state function will take place in the days to come remains to be seen.