Nepal: Semantics of Judiciary – To Be Just, Not Unjust
Judiciary faces a challenge to its independence, impartiality, autonomy, and fairness. It is to be just and not unjust; the judiciary has to be cognizant of the constitution. Parliamentary impeachment of chief justice cases triggered after the 2007 Constitution of Nepal and a political role of Chief Justice becoming Interim Chief Executive to conduct Constituent Assembly Elections in 2013 are clear examples of why the judiciary is mired in political changes and the political subjects of interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. Judicial review and legal activism are the domain of the Courts, and the judiciary in Nepal is the medium for monitoring, enforcing and resolving these constitutional and legal issues. In Nepal, the judiciary is a resort to observe, abide and pursue these two judicial service deliveries among many tasks to make our society just and democratic. Criticisms are rife over the conduct of justices in Nepal and it is a serious matter that needs to be paid adequate attention by those who would like to realize that justice prevails over injustice or truth prevails over falsity, or honesty/integrity prevails over vices/manipulations.
Read more