Nepal’s President Ramchandra Paudel has appointed four justices to the Supreme Court after a selection process that included recommendations from the Judicial Council and parliamentary hearings.
Dr Ratna Bahadur Bagchand, Chandra Bahadur Saru, Janak Pandey and Gokarna Dangi took their oaths of office and secrecy on Friday 13 November. Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma administered the oaths at the presidential office in Kathmandu, with Paudel present.
The appointments bring four high court judges to Nepal’s highest court. Bagchand was chief judge of the High Court in Pokhara. Saru and Pandey had served as judges at the Patan High Court, while Dangi served at the Janakpur High Court’s temporary bench in Birgunj. Pandey’s previous posting included the Hetauda bench of the Patan court.
From recommendation to appointment
The Judicial Council recommended the four candidates on 6 October. The Parliamentary Hearing Committee subsequently considered the nominations and unanimously endorsed them on 7 November. Paudel made the appointments under Article 129 of Nepal’s constitution, which provides for Supreme Court judges to be appointed by the president on the council’s recommendation.
The process involved several institutions with different roles. The council put forward the candidates, the parliamentary committee examined them, and the president made the appointments. The chief justice then administered the oaths. The appointments are distinct from the earlier recommendations and parliamentary approval.
The committee invited complaints from the public during the hearing process. It received 13 complaints concerning the proposed judges, and complainants were given an opportunity to be heard. A complaint is not a finding of misconduct, and the committee went on to approve all four nominations.
There had also been disagreement within the Judicial Council. Its senior-most Supreme Court justice, Sapana Pradhan Malla, questioned whether seniority had been overlooked without sufficient justification and raised concerns about inclusion and the absence of Nepal Bar Association representation. Another council member, Mahesh Kumar Nepal, expressed disagreement with the recommendations of Pandey and Dangi. Those objections concerned the selection process and recommendations; they are not findings of wrongdoing by the appointees.
Questions raised at the hearings
During the parliamentary hearings, members questioned the nominees about delays, judicial independence and the enforcement of court decisions. The discussions also covered concerns about the influence of intermediaries and public confidence in the justice system.
Each nominee addressed aspects of the court’s work. Saru proposed reducing the number of cases that have been pending for years. Pandey discussed case management and suggested that matters of national importance should be resolved more quickly.
Bagchand proposed stronger coordination between the executive and judiciary to help ensure court decisions are implemented. Dangi argued that judgments should be written in language ordinary people can understand and that justice should be delivered on time.
Those are proposals and commitments made during the hearing process, not evidence that delays have already been reduced or new enforcement arrangements introduced. The committee’s endorsement allowed the nominations to proceed; it did not itself put the proposed changes into effect.
The Supreme Court has the final power to interpret Nepal’s constitution and laws. Its responsibilities also include overseeing the administration of courts and judicial institutions under its jurisdiction. The arrival of four justices changes the personnel of that court, while the issues raised during their hearings remain questions for the judiciary and other institutions to address.
