Fight between Supreme Court justices intensifies with contempt case

The tussle between the bar and the judiciary over the appointment of judges intensified when the Supreme Court administration filed a contempt of court case against Nepal Bar Association (NBA) president Gopal Krishna Ghimire, for criticizing the selection process.

A contempt of court petition was registered at the top court on Monday evening with the approval of registrar Bhadrakali Pokharel. Deputy Registrar Govinda Ghimre filed it with the court demanding legal action against the NBA president.

The court administration continued the case after the full court concluded that legal action against Ghimire was necessary. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha and attended by all the Supreme Court judges, deliberated for two hours on Monday afternoon.

However, it is unlikely that the request will be heard immediately to avoid further escalating the conflict. “There is little chance of a hearing this week as there are only two days left in court before the Dashain holiday,” a court official said. Dashain’s vacation will begin on Thursday and the chief justice will retire before the court resumes.

On September 27, the Judicial Council appointed two Chief Justices of the High Court as Supreme Court judges, while lawyers staged a sit-in at the council premises to protest the appointments. Ghimire, the NBA president, criticized the appointments, accusing the board of selecting the two judges in exchange for money.

“The manner in which the appointments were made clearly shows that there were financial transactions,” he told the Post. He had made similar statements in other public forums.

At a press briefing on Tuesday, Ghimire said the contempt case concerns not just him but the entire legal community. “The entire Bar is united in tackling this matter,” he said. “I have not made any statement that would undermine the dignity of this respected court. My remarks were addressed to the Chief Justice as Chairman of the Judicial Council, who took the illegal decision to appoint these judges.

The five-member Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice, appoints judges and justices. The council includes the justice minister, the highest judge of the Supreme Court and two lawyers, one each chosen by the association and the government.

The association has held regular protests since the council revised its rules in September last year, adjusting the ranking of judges. According to the amendment published in the Nepal Gazette on September 20, the chief registrar of the Supreme Court or the secretary of the council, if appointed as a judge of the High Court, would be immediately ranked below the chief justice of the High Court.

The association demanded the repeal of this provision, calling it regressive, biased, discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional and arguing that it contradicts the principles established by the Supreme Court verdicts. He claims the amended regulations unfairly demote judges appointed from among lawyers, placing them below career judges in the hierarchy.

In response to the protests, leaders of the judiciary constituted a five-member committee on September 2 to resolve the issue through dialogue. Prakash Man Singh Raut, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, headed the committee.

The commission, however, failed to reach a compromise, with the lawyers’ umbrella organization remaining firm in its demand to reverse the changes.

Ram Prasad Bhandari, board member; Ghimire, the president of the NBA; Anjita Khanal, general secretary of the NBA; and Yam Bahadur Budha, secretary of the board, were members of the panel.

The Raut-led panel failed to resolve the dispute. Raut and Bhandari disagreed with the association’s demand to revoke the amendment, while Budha remained neutral. As a result, two separate reports were presented to Shrestha: one from the faction led by Raut, the other written by Ghimire and Khanal. The NBA held regular protests until September 27, until the judges were appointed.

Experts who have followed the dispute say the issue could have been resolved without resorting to litigation. “There was no need for the judiciary to abruptly register contempt of court petitions,” Bala Ram KC, a former Supreme Court judge, told the Post. “The court could have summoned Ghimire and settled the matter.”

He added that by indulging in a conflict with the lawyers’ forum, the Supreme Court has only degraded public confidence in the judiciary. “It’s clearly an ego thing. The fight between the two organizations associated with the justice system will only harm the justice system,” he said.