Nepal’s Constitution: A Look at Article 129
The highest court of any nation serves as the cornerstone of its justice system. In Nepal, the framework for appointing the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges is outlined in Article 129 of the 2072 Constitution. While this Article establishes a basic structure, there are arguments for reform to ensure a more robust and independent judiciary.
Current Provisions of Article 129
- Supreme Court Composition:Β The Court can have a maximum of 20 judges,Β excluding the Chief Justice.
- Appointment Process:
- The President appoints the Chief Justice based on a recommendation by the Constitutional Council,Β a body containing political figures.
- Other Supreme Court judges are appointed based on the recommendation of the Judicial Council.
- Qualifications:
- Chief Justice:Β Must have served as a Supreme Court Judge for at least 3 years.
- Supreme Court Judges:Β Broad qualifications include a law degree,Β experience in the legal field,Β or service in the judiciary.
There are some good reasons why we should change how judges get picked for their jobs. First off, nobody really knows what goes on behind closed doors when the councils decide who to recommend as judges. The process is kept too secret, and we don’t understand the criteria they use to choose candidates. It’s all very non-transparent. Another worry is that politicians have too much say and influence over who gets appointed, especially for the Constitutional Council. Having political figures involved raises concerns that judicial independence could be compromised by partisan politics creeping in. That’s not right – judges should be free from political pressures. The rules also state that for picking the Chief Justice, the older and more senior a candidate is, the better. But this doesn’t make much sense. Seniority and years of experience shouldn’t automatically trump how qualified and capable a candidate actually is based on their record as a judge. Just being around longer doesn’t necessarily make you the best pick. Lastly, the categories that regular judges need to qualify under are very broad and general. There aren’t really any strict, defined experience requirements within each category. So in theory, underqualified candidates who don’t truly have the right background could still slip through if they check just one vague box. Overall, people want more openness about this crucial process, no political fingerprints muddying it up, judgeship appointments made strictly on merit rather than age, and clear-cut quality standards that candidates must meet. Making these reforms could go a long way in having a trustworthy, impartial, and respected judicial system.
Possible Reforms for Nepal:
Several key reforms could help address the concerns and improve Nepal’s process for appointing judges at all levels. Firstly, establishing a far more transparent selection procedure with clearly defined criteria that both the Judicial Council and Constitutional Council must follow would go a long way. For example, candidates could be objectively scored on their qualifications, legal expertise, years of experience, published works, and courtroom performance records. Another critical reform is restructuring the Constitutional Council itself to limit the role and influence of political figures like the Prime Minister and ministers. One possibility is having this council made up solely of respected senior jurists, legal academics, and non-partisan constitutional experts to preserve independence. The overall focus should shift to prioritizing merit over seniority or ties to political parties when selecting judges, especially for the important Chief Justice position. So a younger judge with an exceptional record of high-profile rulings could take precedence over an older, more senior candidate. Finally, the qualification categories for judges need to be refined with strict, well-defined experience requirements within each criteria instead of the current overly broad categorizations. For example, the “senior advocate” category could mandate a minimum of 15 years experience arguing cases at the appellate court level. Or the “legal expert” category could require candidates to hold advanced law degrees and published academic works in their specialized field of law. Implementing reforms along these lines could restore public confidence in a truly meritocratic, impartial, and independent judicial appointments system.
Reforming Article 129 is necessary in order to strengthen Nepal’s judiciary in-order to ensuring a more transparent, merit-based selection process for its highest court i.e . By learning from international examples and addressing concerns about political influence and unclear criteria, Nepal can create a system that fosters a more independent and effective judiciary, ultimately benefiting the nation’s justice system.
#Demand Transparency, Ensure Justice!
#A Brighter Future for Nepal’s Judiciary Starts Now
# Justice Shouldn’t Be a Coin Toss. Reform Article 129