NATIONAL 5 (Spotlight Weekly)]

Standing Against All Odds

Members of parliament are questioning the independence of the judiciary, largely out of ignorance

By KESHAB POUDEL

As junior members of parliament are trying to drag the country into a new controversy, two senior leaders of the House, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and leader of opposition Madhav Kumar Nepal have demonstrated their commitment to an independent judiciary by avoiding comment.

Although former deputy prime minister Ram Chandra Poudel, a leading second-generation leader of the ruling Nepali Congress, has fiercely challenged the apex court, a large number of Congress MPs have remained calm.

Supreme Court : Exercising judicial authority

After the decision of the Supreme Court questioning the legality of the procedure of the Constituency Development Fund, the country's two bodies have become embroiled in confrontation.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court, a group of MPs from the ruling and opposition benches, who supported the amendment bill relating to the Commission of Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) in parliament, have made every effort to bring the court into controversy.

Particularly, a second brand of MPs, who do not know the importance of the independence of the judiciary in safeguarding democracy, are vocal. Thanks to the silence of Prime Minister Deuba and main opposition party leader Nepal, an escalation of the crisis has so far been averted.

"The MPs who are trying to discredit the judges and the judiciary are either ignorant about the value of the independence of the judiciary or motivated by someone," said a political analyst. "Poudel, who is now using every word in his vocabulary to discredit the independent judiciary, dismissed an impeachment motion tabled against then chief justice Surendra Prasad Singh. This shows the double standards of the former speaker."

Despite many ups and downs and hindrances on the part of the judges, the apex court and other courts remain the only institutions the people can look up to for justice.

"If the CIAA (police) is given the right to investigate the judiciary, the essence of an independent judiciary will die," said a lawyer, recalling the Panchayat days when the principal secretary to the King pressured judges to take decisions in his favor.

The question now is whether the judiciary needs to be kept independent or placed under the authority of the police who can misuse their power to influence the judges in the decision-making process.

Political leaders, however, seem to be ignoring the importance of the independent judiciary, which can interpret the law and constitution in accordance within legal tenets.

Of course, there are still many possibilities to improve the performance of the court. But it will be in no one's interest to dangle a sword on the head of the court.

"I will oppose every move to curtail the independence of the judiciary. Some persons may bad in the court, but the institution needs to remain independent," said former minister and RPP leader Rabindra Nath Sharma.

Some of the court's decisions are also responsible for putting the institution on the defensive. Had the court interpreted the constitution on the attorney-general's final right to prosecution and functional immunity in judicial function, the judiciary might not have had to face the present crisis.

The court rejected the claims of the attorney-general for professional immunity and failed to appreciate the need for the protection of professionals. The CIAA questioned the final decision taken by attorney-general.

When the apex court justified the CIAA's demand to raise questions on the attorney-general final authority, the CIAA tabled an amendment bill in parliament showing the interpretation of the court as a legal framework.

Whatever mistakes and faults the court may have made, it is only an independent judiciary through which the people can challenge injustices committed by the state. It is vital to avoid unnecessary confrontation between ignorant MPs and the independent judiciary.