Kathmandu — A dispute has erupted between members of Nepal’s legislature and the acting head of the Supreme Court over the appointment process for the country’s next Chief Justice. The confrontation intensified after acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla issued a written order directing the Supreme Court administration to register a writ petition that challenges the Constitutional Council’s recommendation.
The petition contests the Constitutional Council’s May 8 recommendation of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, arguing the council disregarded seniority by naming the fourth-ranked justice instead of the most senior candidate. Senior advocates including Dinesh Tripathi and Prem Raj Silwal are among those who filed the petition. Court administrators had initially refused to register it and issued a rejection note, prompting the petitioners to seek a hearing.
Malla instructed the court administration to complete registration by 1 PM local time, but reports say the chief registrar and registrars became unreachable, raising questions about compliance and administrative transparency. The episode has exposed tensions within the judiciary over internal procedures and the proper handling of petitions challenging high-level judicial appointments.
The order drew sharp responses in Parliament. Lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) criticized the acting chief justice, saying the directive to register the petition crossed norms and risked upsetting the separation of powers. RSP lawmaker Samikshya Bastola argued that an aggressive judicial posture could undermine the court’s ability to deliver impartial judgments, while colleague Yagya Mani Neupane said parliamentary debate may be warranted when administrative processes in the judiciary are at issue.
Opposition members from the CPN-UML pushed back, citing Article 105 of the Constitution, which bars parliamentary discussion of matters that could affect the administration of justice in cases pending before courts and judicial acts performed in the course of duty.
The writ petition asserts that the recommendation process violated constitutional practice, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Separately, the Federal Parliament Secretariat says 16 complaints were filed within the ten-day window set by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee after Sharma’s nomination. The committee has scheduled hearings to begin on Tuesday and asked complainants to appear at Singha Durbar.
In addition, a written petition filed with the parliamentary committee by Jasmin Ojha of Maitidevi seeks rejection of Sharma’s appointment, raising questions about his constitutional eligibility, ethics, impartiality, and institutional integrity, and asks that impeachment be considered if warranted.
The dispute highlights both institutional friction between Nepal’s judiciary and legislature and internal disagreements within the judiciary itself as the country moves toward selecting its next Chief Justice. Further developments are expected as the Supreme Court administration, the Parliamentary Hearing Committee and complainants proceed with their respective processes.
