A growing confrontation between Parliament and the judiciary has erupted after Nepal’s acting Chief Justice ordered the registration of a petition challenging the nomination of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma…reports Asian Lite News
A growing confrontation has emerged in Nepal over the appointment of the country’s next Chief Justice, with lawmakers, judicial officials and legal experts locked in a dispute that has exposed deepening divisions within the judiciary and Parliament.
The latest controversy erupted after officiating Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla issued a written order directing the Supreme Court administration to register a writ petition challenging the recommendation for the next Chief Justice.
The petition questions the May 8 decision of the Constitutional Council to recommend Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma for the post of Chief Justice. Petitioners have alleged that the council ignored the principle of seniority by recommending the fourth ranked justice instead of the most senior candidate.
According to reports, officiating Chief Justice Malla instructed the apex court administration on Monday to complete registration of the petition by 1 pm local time. However, the chief registrar and other registrars reportedly became unreachable after the order, triggering further uncertainty over whether the directive would be implemented.
The writ petition was filed by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, advocate Prem Raj Silwal and others after the court administration initially refused to register the case and issued a rejection note.
The petitioners later met officiating Chief Justice Malla, arguing that even their application seeking a hearing against the rejection had not been placed before a judicial bench. Following the complaint, Malla ordered the administration to register the petition within the same day.
The developments sparked heated reactions in Parliament and among members of the legal fraternity. During Monday’s session of the lower house, lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party criticised Malla’s directive, arguing that it violated established legal norms and judicial practice.
RSP lawmaker Samikshya Bastola accused the judiciary of overstepping constitutional boundaries.
“The theory of separation of power seems to have been forgotten by the court,” Bastola said in Parliament, warning that interference beyond judicial limits could undermine the delivery of justice.
Another RSP legislator, Yagya Mani Neupane, defended Parliament’s right to discuss administrative issues within the judiciary, while maintaining that judicial verdicts themselves were not being questioned.
Their remarks prompted objections from lawmakers belonging to the CPN-UML, who argued that parliamentary rules prohibit discussion of matters currently under judicial consideration.
Article 105 of Nepal’s Constitution bars discussion in either House of Parliament on matters that could adversely affect the administration of justice in cases pending before the courts or judicial actions carried out by judges in the course of their duties.
The writ petition further argues that the recommendation process violated constitutional conventions governing the appointment of the Chief Justice, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Meanwhile, controversy surrounding Justice Sharma’s nomination has intensified after the Federal Parliament Secretariat confirmed that 16 complaints had been filed against him. The complaints were submitted during a 10 day period opened by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee following Sharma’s nomination on May 9.
The hearing process on the complaints is scheduled to begin on Tuesday at Singha Durbar, where complainants have been asked to appear before the committee.
Separately, a written petition seeking rejection of Sharma’s appointment has also been submitted to the committee by Kathmandu resident Jasmin Ojha.
The petition raises questions over Sharma’s constitutional eligibility, ethics, impartiality and institutional integrity. Ojha argued that seeking such a high constitutional office without meeting all required qualifications reflected bad faith and called for Sharma’s appointment to be rejected. She further demanded that impeachment proceedings be considered if necessary.
