The Parliamentary Hearing Committee unanimously approved four nominees for the Supreme Court on November 7, after hearings that began on November 5. Their appointment and oath-taking are expected after the Tihar holiday.
The nominees are Dr Ratna Bahadur Bagchand, chief judge of the Pokhara High Court; Chandra Bahadur Saru, a judge of the Patan High Court; Janak Pandey, a judge at the Hetauda bench of the Patan High Court; and Gokarna Dangi, a judge at the Birgunj bench of the Janakpur High Court. The Judicial Council recommended them on October 6.
The committee received 13 complaints against the nominees and questioned them about their judicial records, alleged political interference, the role of intermediaries in court decisions and public confidence in the justice system. The nominees also presented documents setting out their judicial philosophies and proposed reforms.
Objections to the selection
Two members of the Judicial Council and the Nepal Bar Association objected to the recommendations.
Senior-most Supreme Court Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla disagreed with the selection process, and Justice Mahesh Nepal objected to the selection of two nominees.
The Bar Association said seniority had been bypassed and the selections were selective. The Supreme Court has five vacancies, but the Council recommended four names. The Constitution does not require the most senior High Court judge to be promoted, so the question is whether clear and publicly explainable criteria were used.
Conflict-of-interest question
The nomination of Janak Pandey drew particular attention because of a corruption case involving his wife, Maya Puri. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority filed cases over the alleged illegal registration of public land in Damak, Jhapa. She was acquitted by the Special Court, but the land dispute remains before the Supreme Court on appeal.
Pandey acknowledged the case and said that, if appointed, he would not hear any case involving her. Former Supreme Court justice Top Bahadur Singh raised the broader question of whether a judge’s close relative being a party in a case before the same court could affect perceptions of impartiality. Pandey disputed that his appointment would prevent other judges from hearing it.
How judges are appointed
Under Article 129 of the Constitution, appointment has three stages. The Judicial Council recommends candidates, the Parliamentary Hearing Committee examines them, and the President formally appoints.
The Council has five members: the Chief Justice, who chairs it; the federal law minister; the senior-most Supreme Court judge; a legal expert appointed by the President on the Prime Minister’s recommendation; and a senior advocate or advocate with at least 20 years’ experience recommended by the Nepal Bar Association.
The Chief Justice is recommended by the Constitutional Council instead.
Candidates must be Nepali citizens and meet one of four professional routes. They may hold a law degree and have served at least five years as a High Court chief judge or judge, or practised at least 15 years as a senior advocate or advocate. They may be distinguished jurists with at least 15 years in the legal field, or have served at least 12 years in a gazetted first-class or higher post in the Judicial Service.
The hearing committee
Article 292 requires parliamentary hearings for Supreme Court judges.
The committee has 15 members, 12 from the House of Representatives and three from the National Assembly. It publishes nominees’ names, receives and examines complaints, invites nominees and complainants, and can seek documents.
Under the Federal Parliament’s joint rules, a nominee is approved unless at least two-thirds of total membership, meaning 10 of 15, votes to reject.
The rules give 45 days to complete a hearing, and a delay does not block the appointment. Committee members cannot practise law in the Supreme Court during that parliamentary term. Independence and accountability
Once appointed, judges are not meant to take instructions from the government, parties or Parliament. They can be removed only through procedures such as impeachment on specified grounds. Independence does not mean immunity from accountability for misconduct or conflicts of interest.
