A Test of Judicial Transparency

A controversy has emerged over the recommendation of candidates for four vacant positions of Supreme Court justice, with allegations that seniority and the established order of precedence were disregarded. Two members of the Judicial Council (JC) have registered written notes of dissent, arguing that the decision was neither objective nor transparent. That even a decision concerning such a prestigious position as that of a Supreme Court justice could not be reached unanimously is a matter of concern. For any individual or institution, protecting its reputation is far more difficult than building it. Once lost, reputation is rarely restored. The same applies to state institutions. In Nepal, however, the reputation of state institutions appears to have steadily declined in recent years. The fact that the judiciary does not appear to be an exception is particularly troubling. There have previously been public complaints that the administration of the judiciary was opaque, that the influence of middlemen in the courts had increased, and that problems such as corruption, delays and disorder were becoming evident, as in other government agencies. Judges themselves had pointed to such problems and offered suggestions for reform. After some of those suggestions were implemented, complaints about practices such as “bench shopping” also appeared to decline.