Editorial

This headline is among the most frequented in the columns. The fault lies in the profusion with which Nepali politics allows the repetitive opportunities’. We insist that Nepali politics has conveniently forgotten the basics of democracy and the rule of law. The latest reminder comes in the form of the imbroglio, now in the judiciary. No neutral politics has left none cleansed as is evinced in the current fracas. Did the Chief Justice strike bargains with the Chief Executive in lieu of judicial decisions that put Sher Bahadur Deuba in power? As it is, a judicial decision instructing the sovereign parliament as also the constitutional head of state to nominate Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister, that too, stipulating a deadline for the appointment was a quirk on its own in Nepali history if not in a democracy outright. That the appointment should have been in exchange for berths in the cabinet is an infringement of justice no doubt. No doubt a particular minister resigned from the ministry after the controversy was made public by way of which the rumour was lent credence. The prime minister is not saying why the resignation, or the appointment for that matter, took place. Nor, of course, is the chief justice. What matters is that the chief justice is part of a constitutional committee whose decisions he is privy to. How after all did the bargain come public? This should have been as much a matter of public concern. And now there is this move to oust the chief justice which is fine and dandy but what of the prime minister? No wonder this move is on too as also a move to involve the judicial panel making the decision and the legal experts involved in that case. Whew! The media market is awash now with interviews of legal experts who are stripping our judiciary naked of the effects of partisan politics and other shenanigans shrouded in the couch of judicial independence. Indeed, questions of non-professional appointments and decisions are now frothing the public discussions on an estate henceforth approached with sanctity. This has resulted in dirty linen being washed in public so much so that all estates of the system now stands maligned with the resultant effect of the judiciary going to court on its own. The decisions emanating will not clean the judiciary any more than the judicial decisions on parliamentary procedure and appointments much less prerogatives. How, then, can the rule of law exist in a country where the war is among the law. The system is tattered by all means. This is to unsalvageable extents, we would say. Besmirching the judiciary should be the last act of impudence and any continuous can only mean that there is none in control of the system and state. Indeed, if anything, the transition from a feudal state to a modern democracy occurred in Nepal with the institution of an independent judiciary epitomized for its professionalism and independence. Now it turns out that that independence was gradually compromised over the years by appointments within and decisions about the estate affecting its sanctity. The current excesses .it is revealed, is but a demonstration of the cumulative rut existing in that institution. A change in the system would mean an overhaul in the judiciary itself. So be it, black coats and all.