KATHMANDU, Sept 23: A dispute in the House of Representatives on Tuesday brought a difficult question into focus: how should Nepal hold judges accountable while protecting their independence?
Lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and the opposition CPN-UML clashed over a proposal to restructure the judiciary and allow Parliament to examine judges’ assets and court rulings. RSP lawmaker Yagyamani Neupane called for a parliamentary mechanism to investigate judges’ assets and study judgments. UML lawmaker Guru Prasad Baral called the proposal “an attack on the judiciary.”
Neupane argued that Nepal had changed its constitutions and governments several times while the judiciary had remained much the same. For ordinary people, he said, access to justice had barely improved. He called for changes to court structures and working practices, and pointed to a Supreme Court report on the influence of middlemen in the courts that, he said, had not been implemented.
The demand was directed against what he called “unrestrained independence,” Neupane said, rather than judicial independence itself. Announcing investigations into corruption and unexplained wealth only makes news, he added; carrying them through would show that the government was governing.
‘Justice is dying in Nepal. Let’s save it!’
Baral countered that Parliament should not interfere with the judiciary. The executive, legislature and courts must each stay within their constitutional limits, he said. Referring to damage and attacks on courts during the Gen Z movement, he accused Neupane of seeking a new form of attack on the justice system and asked him to correct his remarks.
Neupane replied that pointing out how poor people struggle to obtain justice was no breach of the separation of powers. Article 105 of the Constitution restricts parliamentary discussion of cases before the courts, he said, but does not prevent lawmakers from discussing judicial reform. He asked whether urging quicker resolution of Gen Z movement cases, or seeking better access to justice for the poor, violated that provision.
Experts say the exchange raises a broader question about where judicial accountability ends and political interference begins. Neupane’s proposals themselves cover two different matters. Scrutiny of a judge’s conduct or assets may fall within accountability. A parliamentary review of the merits of individual judgments could allow lawmakers to exert pressure on courts.
Other countries have faced similar disputes. After Kenya adopted a new constitution in 2010, it established a process to assess serving judges and magistrates. The review was carried out by an independent panel that included legal experts, civil society members and foreign judges, rather than by Parliament alone. Even then, a review five years later found that deep problems remained. Changing institutions did not quickly change their culture.
In India, Parliament passed a law giving elected branches a greater role in judicial appointments. The Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that it violated the Constitution’s basic structure. South Africa took another approach: a commission including judges, lawyers, lawmakers and presidential appointees handles appointments and disciplinary matters. Analysts say these examples show why the design of a reform body matters as much as its stated aim.
Nepal has its own grounds for concern. Delays, the influence of middlemen and the difficulty many citizens face in reaching the courts are well known. Analysts argue that the judiciary needs to clean up its practices. They also warn that parliamentary investigations into individual rulings, or a committee able to summon judges over their decisions, could leave courts vulnerable to pressure from the government and legislature.
They suggest strengthening the Judicial Council, making appointments more transparent, reducing political bargaining, closing legal gaps and using impeachment where warranted. These steps, they argue, would address misconduct without giving Parliament a role in deciding whether particular judgments were right.
The argument has a long history. Debate over judicial independence began when the 1990 Constitution established the principle. After the 2006 People’s Movement, parties again disagreed over whether a judiciary made more responsive to citizens should face greater political oversight.
In 2018, a parliamentary hearing committee rejected Deepak Raj Joshee’s nomination as chief justice, prompting objections from legal professionals and civil society groups who saw political interference. In 2021, an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana remained unresolved for months, leaving the judiciary in uncertainty and drawing allegations of political manoeuvring. Recent debates over Judicial Council rules and judges’ retirement age have brought renewed calls to keep party interests out of appointments.
The pattern has repeated for decades. Governments and lawmakers describe closer oversight of judges as necessary for accountability; legal professionals warn that it can weaken the separation of powers. Tuesday’s RSP–UML clash is the latest instance.
The pressing question, experts say, is no longer whether the judiciary needs reform. It is who should carry it out, how the process should work and where its powers should stop. Clear constitutional limits and an independent process offer a way to pursue accountability without placing court decisions under political control.
