A complicated illusion

The judiciary in Nepal has been under increased criticism in recent years due to claims of political meddling, corruption and incompetence. Historically seen as the last bulwark of justice and the last judge of constitutional norms, the court has revealed weaknesses in its defenses. These cracks expose a deeply ingrained misconception: that Nepal’s court is completely impartial and impervious to corruption. In actuality, Nepal’s judiciary’s independence is still a complicated illusion that is influenced by both internal and foreign factors. It should serve as a check on authority, a defender of the law, and an upholder of justice, as is the case in many democracies. But in Nepal, a number of issues make it less successful, which makes people wonder if it really reflects these principles or if it is just a façade. The independence of a court is essential for upholding the rule of law. 

However, political interests frequently exert pressure on Nepal's court, undermining its independence. Appointments and decisions can be influenced by political parties and their leaders, raising questions about potential bias. A conflict of interest arises when judges are chosen based more on their political connections than their qualifications, raising questions about their capacity to make unbiased decisions.

Political appointments

Political meddling in the selection of judges is the main grievance directed at Nepal’s judicial system. Although political forces frequently exert excessive influence, the constitution has procedures intended to guarantee neutrality in appointments. There is a contradiction of independence inside dependency since the Judicial Council, which is in charge of nominating judges, has members who are also chosen by political players. This system, which is supposed to maintain a balance of power, unintentionally makes it possible for political objectives to influence the court. The politicization of Nepal’s court is another mistake. 

Decisions that are influenced by politics undermine the justice and impartiality that the legal system is supposed to provide. Politicians frequently have excessive control over judicial nominations, guaranteeing that their supporters hold important posts. As a result, judges may feel pressured to support the interests of those who made their appointment possible, which undermines their capacity to act impartially and independently.

Myth vs reality

One of the main myths that is still spread is that corruption does not exist in Nepal’s courts. Although the court is generally regarded with respect by the people, persistent allegations of bribery and corrupt activities cast doubt on its impartiality. Subtle and pernicious corruption spreads through a number of avenues, from lower courts to higher judicial seats. The rule of law is allegedly undermined and public faith is eroded when judges are accused of favoring parties with financial incentives or influence.

Justice fatigue

The widespread backlog of cases in Nepal’s courts is another serious problem. Despite the basic right to a fair and prompt trial, many litigants must wait a long time for justice. Overwhelming caseloads, little resources and a shortage of staff are problems for courts. Some call this ‘justice fatigue’—a situation when litigants completely lose trust in the legal system—is brought on by the procedural delays. The idea that justice postponed is still justice is erroneous; in actuality, it is justice denied.

Obstacles to reform

Political opposition and bureaucratic delay have made Nepal’s judiciary reform a difficult process. Because of entrenched vested interests and a lack of political will, several attempts at structural transformation have failed. Constitutional clauses intended to protect judicial independence have been construed selectively, frequently in a way that benefits the powerful. Enacting significant change is difficult since it involves not just changing the legislation but also the culture in which the judiciary functions.

Restoring trust

Systemic reforms are necessary to rebuild public trust in Nepal's judiciary. Important initial measures include tackling corruption openly, ensuring that judge appointments are made on the basis of qualifications rather than political ties, and implementing technology to expedite case handling. More accountability, which may be attained by open audits and supervision, may also lessen the likelihood of corruption and rebuild confidence.

In summary, Nepal’s judiciary is at a turning point as it struggles with the myths of independence and incorruptibility. Both institutional change and a change in public opinion are necessary to achieve an independent and equitable legal system. Only until these ingrained misconceptions are confronted and dispelled by an unshakable dedication to justice and openness will Nepal’s judiciary be able to live up to these values. Significant obstacles confront Nepal’s court, undermining its function in the democratic process. Public trust is undermined by problems with accountability, independence and openness as well as political meddling. The judiciary must distance itself from political influence and make a commitment to impartiality and openness in order to operate efficiently. Nepal’s judiciary cannot genuinely become a pillar of justice until these changes are implemented.