Constitutional Expert Criticizes Random Case Assignment in Supreme Court

Kathmandu. Constitutional expert Dr. Bipin Adhikari has stated that the process of selecting judges and forming benches in the Supreme Court should not be mechanical. He emphasized that cases should be assigned based on subject matter expertise and competence, calling the current system of assigning cases through lottery the most irrational and inferior. Adhikari noted that just as doctors are chosen based on illness and engineers based on construction, litigants seeking justice should receive it from the most competent judges. He believes that serious constitutional, large infrastructure, tax, commercial, and intellectual property cases, when heard by judges lacking expertise, lead to injustice and reduced efficiency. He pointed out that the concept of assigning and receiving cases for partition, contrary to the principle that appropriate cases should reach appropriate judges, is completely unjust. He believes that the lottery system cannot be an alternative to the suspicion of alleged 'settlements' in the court. 'This is a situation where the cure is more dangerous than the disease,' Adhikari said. He clarified that while it is a good practice for the Chief Justice to lead the selection of suitable judges, they must be completely independent, impartial, and competent. He believes that accusations of 'bench shopping' or bias against the Chief Justice would be unfortunate for the judiciary itself. He has proposed a middle ground by reforming the current full lottery system. Recalling the practice of the British Supreme Court, he suggested that the 'controlled random allocation' model would be the safest and most appropriate. Under this, an expert group (pool) would be formed through laws or rules to determine which type of case is suitable for which judge. Then, a system should be implemented where judges are selected by computer or lottery only from within that qualified group. Adhikari proposes that if any exception is needed in this system, the Chief Justice must provide a written reason, and this should be subject to public scrutiny. He concluded that a combination of objective basis and lottery, rather than the extreme paths of leaving it entirely to the Chief Justice's discretion or relying solely on the lottery, would be the best design for the judiciary.