Submit your Article

Ongoing discourses with robustly cross-cutting argumentation vis-a-vis recommendation on 33rd Chief Justice of Nepal has sparked an accruing attention and surge of soaring verbal skirmishes among people. A late decision akin to thwarting the tradition and experimenting something unique has invoked widespread appreciation as well as valid vitriol or boundless backlash as well from some quarters of the citizens. But baseless brickbats or bickering will seldom herald any outcome. It does not even generate any fluke to find the additional faith to either of associates or institutions. Though the social media sites and feeds are infused or swamped with several standpoints to self-support, sides objecting the recommendation seem indisputably weak and comparatively meager in gravity. Brusquely, an unrequired response from the immediate past PM, who had commanded a capacious commendation and accolade by successfully handling and holding the nation at a time of utter confusion and extremely uncertain or dismal mode, has ruptured her reputation and deeply dismayed her dignity. This might have been a surprise disappointment to a certain number of people. Taking sides firmly and confirming either of propositions might obviously lead each of the discussants to oblivious confusion and endless pandemonium ahead. However, following submissions provide reason to weigh the recommendation not entirely untrue and deplorable as exaggeratedly embroidered by the puny pool of people. At least more than half a dozen of sound reasoning debunks and invalidates the loopholes looming large in sharp reservation some are revering at front to vilify the recommendation of Sharma as upcoming Chief Justice by crossing three others in list of seniority.  The Constitution of Nepal, 2072, Article 129, Sub-Article 3 infallibly and flawlessly has provisioned that any sitting Justice in the Supreme Court with more than three years of consecutive experience is unquestionably eligible to be recommended to Chief Justice. The stated provision of the Constitution is pretty plain enough and straight that no extra genius is required to make a message. There is no room to reasonably resist and diametrically demur when one among the referred qualified in the list is recommended. It would have gained attention had there been recommendation to those who had not been eligible at all. No imminent and grave deviation is signaled as boastfully inflated by the club of detractors upon the decision. This is not the maiden moment that the seniormost one is abjured or respectfully declined for the CJ position. Not galore are the examples; but few editions have been exercised at home and abroad as well. Justice Deepak Raj Joshi, despite being the senior most sitting justices, was unanimously unacceptable for Chief Justice, not in the distant past. Moreover, he was serving as Acting Chief Justice at the time of being responded with dismissal from appointing into Chief Justice. Few similar cases had happened in India as well.  The consternation and uproar, public and unceremoniously permeated, by the unrecommended seniormost justices indicates that the setting has been breached and dented seriously thus has aggrieved or inflicted them a lot. Our constitution prohibits and doesn’t permit any discussions about Justices germane to their verdict in cases from the court. It may be usual expectation that Justices too won’t display any unusual and filthy showcasing of reaction about cases relating to appointments. A firm admonishment against the decision from judiciary fraternity itself is beyond permissible limit and shall surf shockwaves to other domains. Reciprocal response only builds trust and commands respect. They may dislike the decision but can’t disagree and challenge it openly in tone of mass mutiny.    Recommending the seniormost Judge to CJ is not a compulsory protocol and rulebook-scripted obligation. In the past, it was merely an incidental precedent caused by extreme inertia and inability of constitutional council’s earnest and objective assessment among said eligibles. Rather than any prudent planning, it was entertained in the wake of an effort of sheer setting to transmogrify the judiciary as a premeditated puppet to beef up vested political agendas and favor. Whenever all eligible are in competition, not a compulsion that always the seniormost must champion it. Either of them may outsmart others despite the fact that all the vying may obsess for the rank. Objective assessment and evaluation should not be shrugged off or condoned on either of the alibis. Many other sectors i.e Civil Service, Nepal Police and more have ostensibly witnessed several records of seniormost in rank being outvoted by parallel competitors for promotion on meritorious ground. Few detractors who have attempted to condemn this recommendation and fueling hubris against it argue that this is against the tradition and inherited practice. Undoubtedly certain that this government is formed on a bold public mandate of hinting an absolute demolition of hitherto sustained faulty and filthy traditions on the pedestal of serving rent-seeking attitude and prone to crony capitalism induced syndicate. The new political situation in the nation can no longer be saddled with toeing the line of inimical inherence and stereotypical customs carried till today. So, it reserves every right to stymie and deconstruct traditions which have converted state institutions into toothless tigers for commoners and pumping machines for politicians.    This is an unquestionable right of the constitutional council; likes or dislikes may be choices of people. Arguments might spawn the bi-polar propositions. But, obeying it sans any reservation and institutionalizing the process has no other option and should go non-negotiable.    Objecting to the government and PM is a bogus and baseless blight as the council consists of non-ruling party members and other portfolio holders too. Needless to state that recommendation was a collective decision of multipronged stakes of the state not exclusively limited to the government or governing party alone. Reference of comparative appraisal is undeniably the central engine of expected progress and restructuring of judiciary in days to come. Competitive advantage can be sensed as huge and humongous with the one who has championed it. Thawing the draconian debates as well as minimizing the malign and malignant meaning making maneuver, let’s suspend sponsoring skepticism and fueling the unfounded feud ahead. Appointing the seniormost has been experienced since long but has offered a slim or faint record of improvising judiciary. Breaking the norm and beginning new, but not abysmally awful and unlawful too might ignite the spark of substantive change and super-kinetic pro-justice mileage of the judiciary. It is too early and immensely immature to comment; but should not hesitate to accept that though absolutely undesirable to some; the move is not utterly untenable at all.