Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s decision to recommend the fourth-in-line justice, Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma, as Nepal’s next chief justice has triggered one of the loudest debates over judicial independence in recent years. Balen’s supporters see the move as a long-overdue challenge to the entrenched culture of political bargaining and “setting” within the judiciary.
Critics, who had earlier opposed the government’s move to introduce and promulgate ordinances by suspending an already-summoned parliamentary session, warn that the decision could open the door to executive control over the Supreme Court. One of the ordinances was used to appoint Sharma as the next chief justice by bypassing the decade-old convention of appointing the senior-most justice to the post.
Sharma, the fourth senior-most justice of the Supreme Court, was recommended by the Constitutional Council after PM Shah bypassed three senior justices— Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, and Hari Prasad Phuyal.
The move immediately drew dissent notes from opposition leaders and criticism from the Nepal Bar Association, which accused the government of attempting to place the judiciary under executive influence through ordinances and procedural shortcuts. Some critics even called it gender-based discrimination, arguing that the senior-most woman acting chief justice was denied the opportunity to assume the role. Following the government’s decision, which pitted the judiciary against the executive, Acting Chief Justice Malla urged her fellow judges not to bow to a two-thirds majority or the fear of impeachment.
Infographic: How prepared is Catalonia for statehood?
However, Rabi Lamichhane, speaking at the closing session of a training program for party lawmakers on Sunday, pushed back against Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla’s remarks questioning the recommendation process, calling them “unreasonable” and “unnecessary.”
Speaking on Law Day, Malla had said the recent recommendation process had drifted from established practices and raised constitutional concerns. Lamichhane defended the selection process, arguing that it fully complied with constitutional provisions. “If the senior-most justice automatically became chief justice, there would be no need for the Constitutional Council,” he said.
The government has insisted that the recommendation reflects merit and performance rather than seniority alone. The Prime Minister’s Secretariat defended Sharma’s nomination by citing his case disposal record, academic qualifications, and reputation as an independent legal expert outside traditional party networks. That argument resonated with many Nepalis frustrated by delayed justice, dubious judicial networks, and allegations of political “setting” involving judges, politicians, and power brokers. Public confidence in the judiciary has weakened over the years because of corruption allegations, selective activism, and persistent case backlogs.
Supporters argue that seniority should not become an untouchable rule. The Constitution does not require the senior-most justice to become chief justice. Article 129 only states that a justice must have served at the Supreme Court for at least three years to qualify for the position. Legally, therefore, Balen’s recommendation is constitutional. Deputy Speaker Rubi Kumari Thakur also defended the decision to pick Sharma, arguing that unlike Malla, Regmi, and Phuyal, he had no political connections. She claimed that Malla had been a Constituent Assembly member on a UML ticket, while Phuyal had served as attorney general during UML rule. She also alleged that Regmi is close to the Nepali Congress. According to Thakur, Sharma has no political affiliation like his three senior counterparts.
Some observers also noted that Sharma built his career largely outside overt party politics. He practised law for nearly three decades, holds a PhD in labour law, and entered the Supreme Court through the senior advocate pool. The government appears eager to portray him as a professional rather than a political choice.
Critics argue that even if the move is technically constitutional, it weakens constitutional morality. Nepal followed the seniority convention for decades precisely to reduce political interference in judicial appointments. Reports suggest that the tradition of appointing the senior-most justice had continued for nearly eight decades until PM Balen broke it. Once governments begin selecting chief justices based on subjective standards such as “performance” or “efficiency,” critics fear future prime ministers may simply appoint justices they personally prefer.
The Nepal Bar Association has taken perhaps the strongest position. It warned that the ordinance amending the Constitutional Council process bypassed parliamentary scrutiny and undermined the principle of separation of powers. The Bar accused the government of trying to place the judiciary under executive influence.
Opposition leaders also questioned the legitimacy of Constitutional Council decisions made under controversial ordinance provisions that allow meetings with limited participation. The Nepali Congress argued that bypassing the senior-most justice weakens institutional predictability and increases the risk of executive influence over constitutional bodies.
The larger concern now may not be Sharma himself, but the precedent this appointment creates. If future governments use this model responsibly, Nepal could gradually shift toward a more performance-based judicial culture and weaken the old politics of “setting.” But if abused, the same mechanism could allow ruling parties to shape the judiciary according to political convenience.
Meanwhile, institutions survive not only through laws but also through restraint, trust, and accepted norms. Breaking a tradition can sometimes renew a system, but it can also weaken the guardrails that protect democracy from concentrated power. Nepal’s judiciary undeniably needs reform. Public trust has eroded because of delays, factionalism, political influence, and opaque networks. Yet reform without broad consensus often creates fresh suspicion instead of confidence. PM Balen’s supporters call this disruption necessary, while his critics call it reckless and unnecessary. Both sides hold part of the truth.
-1778465739.webp)
