Executive vs judiciary

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

There is a saying in Nepali, “Jun Jogi Aaye Pani Kanai Chireko”. The literal translation is, “no matter who is in-charge of power, the outcome or the treatment of the people remains the same, and hence there is no point in distinguishing between the different leaders.” Over the decades, this metaphor has found its place across various academics and political pundits who have been closely observing the political events in the country. This piece attempts to explain the prevailing differences between our executive and judiciary over some issues.

The executive, legislature, and judiciary are the three pillars of any vibrant democracy across the globe. The legislature is responsible for law-making, while the executive is responsible for implementation, and the judiciary for interpretation, ensuring checks and balances. This is the beauty of democracy.

Nepal, as a nascent democratic republic, has been embracing this universally accepted practice. It has duly acknowledged that an independent executive, judiciary, and legislature will make its democracy vibrant. However, there is growing indifference between the judiciary and the executive for all the wrong reasons in the recent past. This does not bode well for a democracy like ours, which is still in transition.

The present government, led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, came to power after the Gen-Z movement ousted the KP Oli government for its inability to curtail corruption and for promoting nepotism and favouritism. The parliament was dissolved, and a new interim government was put in place with a mandate to conduct an election by March 5, 2026. The interim government inducted untainted figures with integrity into its cabinet to ensure good governance and effective service delivery. There was euphoria among the people, thinking that the interim government would not leave any stone unturned to end past injustices and uproot corruption within the given stipulated time.

However, barely three months after its formation, the interim government became embroiled in controversy over certain decisions. The Sushila Karki-led government made some questionable decisions, compelling the apex court to overturn them. The episode of the reinstatement of Hitendra Dev Shakya as the National Electricity Authority’s managing director is a case in point.

On September 21, 2025, the cabinet appointed Manoj Silwal—a former NEA deputy executive director—as managing director of the state-run power utility, just five months after Hitendra Shakya took charge. Earlier, on March 24, the KP Oli government had removed Kulman Ghising—credited with ending chronic power outages in Nepal—from the post of managing director and appointed Shakya in his place. But after becoming energy minister following the Gen Z movement, Ghising retaliated by transferring Shakya to a newly created position—a move that compelled the apex court to intervene and object.

This is the fourth instance in two months compelling the Supreme Court to intervene and overturn a decision. Just to recall, within a month of taking over charge, the judiciary intervened over a decision of the government. In a blanket decision citing austerity measures, the government had decided to terminate the contracts of all personal assistants of lawmakers and political officeholders.

A group of such officials from the National Inclusion Commission challenged the decision in the Supreme Court, and it was overturned. The Sushila-led government committed another blunder when it made a decision to recall the envoys, compelling the Supreme Court to intervene yet another time.

Many see the intervention of the judiciary challenging the decision of the executive as a sign of vibrant democracy, illustrating the best example of separation of powers. They argue that the Sushila-led government, which no doubt came to power after the Gen Z protest, has a noble intention to cleanse the country plagued with ill and immoral practices. But it has to embrace and follow democratic values and principles.

The country was looted by politicians in the name of politics. Trust in public institutions was fading. High-voltage scams, corruption, and abuse of authority were becoming daily occurrences, while the people were struggling for day-to-day survival. Amidst this, politicians were seen hopping and skipping between parties, shamefully presenting their reshuffles as revolutionary change.

Perturbed by this, citizens—mainly youth—said enough is enough and launched a massive protest demanding an end to corruption and nepotism. Now, the interim government is in place after the Gen Z protest that ousted the KP Oli government. The mandate of the interim government is to hold the election and give a way forward to the country.

Constitutional experts say that court decisions should not be misinterpreted by the executive. According to them, the court’s decisions are not an attempt to undermine the executive; they serve as a reminder of the government’s limitations.

However, as things stand now, it seems the government is busy punishing those who were its vocal critics. This pen pusher is not advocating in favour of corrupt and tainted politicians of all hues. My submission is that the present interim government should place high emphasis on issues related to the election scheduled for March 5, 2026, and not on petty issues like recalling envoys, etc. These are issues that will be dealt with post-election.

Both the judiciary and the executive have their defined roles and responsibilities. They act as checks and balances on each other, ensuring that neither oversteps its jurisdiction and that the rule of law is upheld. This is the essence of democracy, and this is how democracy thrives. We do not want any of these pillars of democracy overstepping their jurisdiction and ambit under the instructions of external actors with diabolic agendas. A strong and independent judiciary, executive, and legislature are all we need to ensure a bright future for our upcoming generations.