Why in news?
Current face-off between the executive and the judiciary in Nepal will further erode the credibility of both institutions.
What happened?
- The move to impeach the chief justice of Nepal’s Supreme Court, has triggered a new political crisis in Kathmandu.
- Deputy PM and Nepali Congress leader resigned from the government after the impeachment motion signed by CPN (Maoist-Centre) and Nepali Congress, was moved.
- On May 1 2017, the third largest constituent in the ruling coalition, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), withdrew its ministers.
- Though the RPP has not withdrawn support to the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government, the events have weakened the coalition government.
- Under Nepal’s constitution, a motion for impeachment moved by not less than one-fourth of the total membership of the House leads to the suspension of the person holding the constitutional position.
- The notice will then be referred to Parliament’s Impeachment Committee, which will scrutinise the charges and make its recommendations to the House.
- No time limit is specified for its final disposal.
- Soon after Nepal went through radical political changes in 2006, its constitution was replaced by an interim one, requiring even sitting judges of the Supreme Court to take oath afresh.
- A system of parliamentary hearings was introduced, but there were no structural checks to ensure the committee acted in a bipartisan manner.
- In consequence, those hopeful of appointment as judges felt a need to please parties or leaders in the committee.
- The same practice was followed in appointments to other constitutional bodies and ambassadorial positions.
Why this sudden turmoil?
- At the root of the crisis is the politicisation of the judiciary, to which both the political parties and the judges have contributed.
- The issue did not begin with present CJI, who took office as Nepal’s first woman CJ, and is unlikely to end with her exit.
- The independence of the judiciary was compromised soon after the 2006 Constitution came into being and political parties started to influence appointments to the bench.
- The wise principle that there must be separation of powers of the executive and the judiciary was ignored by both institutions.
- In 2012, the then-CJ became PM of a government that included ministers from political parties.
- In turn, the judiciary turned a blind eye to political activists, including legislators, seeking nomination as judges.
- Earlier this year, the stand-off between the bar and the executive and judiciary had reached a flashpoint when over 300 lawyers, including senior office-bearers of the Nepal Bar Association, resigned to protest the appointment of 80 high court judges.
- These appointees allegedly were nominees of the ruling parties, namely the CPN (Maoist-C) and the Nepali Congress.
- Nepal’s transition from a monarchy to a republic has been chaotic.
- The past decade has seen various stakeholders working at cross purposes in a bid to grab power at all costs, which has exposed the country’s ethnic and regional fault lines.
- The failures of the political mainstream in nation-building could test the people’s faith in democracy itself.
Source: The Indian Express
