In early October this year, Supreme Court Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut took charge of the judiciary as its head. Raut, a former advocate at the apex court, will lead the judiciary for nearly 18 months. While defending the special hearing at the parliament for his new role, Raut presented a 24-point action plan outlining his vision to make much-needed reforms in the judiciary.

But will CJ Raut really be able to walk the talk as the chief of a key organ of the state and restore public faith in it?

To safeguard democracy and maintain public trust, the judiciary must be fair, impartial and independent, which is a formidable task, indeed.

For Raut, the first challenge is improving the relationship between the Nepal Bar Association (NBA), an umbrella organization of Nepali attorneys, and the bench, at a time when the tussle between the two is worsening. This has resulted in delays in the appointment of judges in various courts, landing the judiciary in a mess and making the already-lethargic justice delivery system even worse.

Amid this tussle comes the apex court administration’s contempt of court case against the head of the NBA, Gopal Krishna Ghimire, in response to his demand for revisions in the ‘faulty’ Judicial Council Regulation. This comes after the council amended the regulation, placing the Supreme Court’s chief registrar at the second rank of high court if s/he gets appointed as a high court judge prompting the bar to decry the move as anti-constitutional.

NBA maintains that the council-effected change in the regulation affects career growth of senior judges working at the high court as the second rank in the court ensures early promotion to the coveted position of the chief judge and makes way for appointment as an apex court judge. NBA leaders believe the revised regulation will end up demoralizing high court judges.

Second, NBA believes that people’s faith in the judiciary is fading further with the recent judicial appointments by the council courting controversies and public criticism.

Third, certain controversial judgments on the part of the apex court over the years have tarnished the image of the apex court with the people openly criticizing them as if delays in justice delivery, corrupt practices and politicking were not enough.

Who’s responsible for this crisis in the judiciary?

Part of the blame goes to past CJs also. But is CJ Raut ready to mend ways, make a fresh start and transform the judiciary?

This question is important because the judiciary achieves legitimacy through excellent performance and impartial judgments.

At present, service-seekers feel that approaching courts for justice is a waste of time. Political agents feel safer than victims when a case lands at the courts. Public perception is that one gets justice if s/he is wealthy and/or powerful.

There’s a backlog of corruption cases in courts and if cases keep piling up with verdicts becoming a rarity, credibility of the judiciary will suffer further.

Scholars like Aristotle used to say, ‘justice is not a topic of argument but practical experience of heart’. However, that no longer remains relevant in the Nepali context.

For years, lawyers, judges, the public and other stakeholders have been demanding serious reforms within the judiciary, which has been facing some serious charges of corruption and political interference.

The actions of the Judicial Council, the apex body that appoints judges, almost always court controversy.

Owing to these factors, the new CJ should begin his reforms with the aim of enhancing the image of the judiciary as a free, fair and independent organ of the state. Obviously, the CJ can't perform this task alone, but he can at least make an honest effort.

The CJ can begin by seeking to win the trust of the NBA and the JC, especially in relation to the justice appointment process, and by taking action against judges performing below par. The JC has no other option than correcting the faulty regulation as it did not bother to consult the stakeholders while making changes in it. This move will help raise the level of public trust toward the judiciary.

The basic principles of the UN also state that the state should guarantee judicial independence, so it is the duty of all state organs, including the judiciary, to uphold judicial independence.

It’s time to steer the judiciary in the right direction by working together with all stakeholders concerned and the CJ should lead this effort.