Spread the love

Kathmandu, Aug 15: A rift inside the Supreme Court has deepened over how to form the constitutional bench, leaving the body inactive for more than a month. Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut’s proposal to select its members by lottery has sparked resistance from senior justices, turning the issue into an institutional standoff.

In a full court meeting in mid-July, Raut suggested drawing lots to pick four justices for the bench, which interprets the constitution and settles disputes between different levels of government. Junior justices backed the move, but senior figures including Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, and Hari Phuyal opposed it, viewing it as a sign of mistrust. They insist the bench must follow the principle of seniority laid out in Article 137(1) of the constitution, as well as past recommendations from the Nepal Bar Association.

The last session of the five-member bench was on July 9. Senior advocates, including Dinesh Tripathi and Om Prakash Aryal, recently met with both Raut and Malla urging them to end the deadlock. Raut assured them the issue would be resolved soon, but senior justices have demanded he withdraw the lottery proposal and retain the existing practice of appointing members from the roster of the most senior justices.

Article 137(1) provides that the chief justice leads the bench and selects four other senior justices in consultation with the Judicial Council. Raut argues that since other benches already use a lottery to assign cases, the same method should be used for the constitutional bench to enhance transparency and credibility.

The lottery system for case assignment was introduced in January 2022 after a full court endorsed regulations to end the chief justice’s sole power to allocate cases. That reform was one of the demands made during the tenure of former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana.

While the divide among justices persists, the Supreme Court Bar Association has publicly backed the lottery approach for the constitutional bench. Its president has also voiced personal support. The Nepal Bar Association, however, has yet to take a position, leaving the dispute unresolved and the bench unable to function.
People’s News Monitoring Service