Executive And Judiciary At Odds ?

As the Balendra Shah-led government has moved with speed and decisiveness to implement the ‘100-point reform agenda,’ some of its key decisions have come under scrutiny by the court. This, of course, has posed an obstacle to deliver on its promises made to the people during the elections. The Supreme Court (SC) has issued temporary orders to block the government’s decisions to abolish trade unions of civil servants and students’ unions, and remove landless squatters from different locations of the Kathmandu Valley. The SC’s orders have apparently thrown cold water on the government’s bid to restructure the governance system, debilitated by decades of misrule and politicisation of bureaucracy. This has obviously put the executive and judiciary on a collision course.

Prior to the SC’s orders to upend the decisions of the government, the executive and judiciary had already faced a trade-off in the wake of the nomination of Manoj Kumar Sharma as the Chief Justice. The Constitutional Council meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Shah, picked Sharma based on meritocracy by bypassing three other senior judges of the Supreme Court. The decision drew mixed responses from the political and legal fraternity. The detractors have argued that it violated the long-held tradition of picking CJ on the basis of seniority but those defending the Council’s decision insisted that it has set a new precedent of choosing the CJ based on his/her performance and competence, while shattering the practice of political bhag-banda (divide and share) in the highest echelon of the judiciary. The sharing of SC judges among the political parties, specially the ruling ones, had damaged its image, with so many controversial decisions made by the justices bearing the tag of political appointees.   

Malla’s dissatisfaction

Upon the nomination of Sharma as the new CJ, Acting Chief Sapana Pradhan Malla has indirectly expressed her ire against the current government. Speaking at the Law Day function here recently, she said that she was not afraid of the pressure from the government, even if it had a nearly two-thirds majority in the parliament. Not only this, she went on to say that she was ready to face impeachment if necessary while defending judicial autonomy. However, Malla ran the gauntlet for her reactive remarks at the programme boycotted by the Prime Minister. It did not behove her to make inflammatory comments that challenge the government with a sweeping popular mandate. A sitting judge is not normally expected to pass the strong-worded speeches aimed at the executive.

The executive-judiciary relation has visibly begun to strain after the SC issued habeas corpus orders that allowed the release of former prime minister KP Sharma Oli, former home minister Rameh Lekhak and former energy minister Deepak Khadka. Their release was a setback for the government, determined to bring those involved in the killing of youths during the Gen Z protests to book. The first Cabinet meeting had decided to arrest Oli and Lekhak in a speedy move to fulfil its promises of ensuring justice to the families of Gen Z martyrs.

One reason behind selecting Sharma as the CJ is that the government might not receive cooperation from the judges picked by the parties. The government has to bite the bullet if the SC issues one order after another to thwart its important decisions. It is imperative for the government to do sufficient homework so that its legal action against any individuals or organisations has a strong basis. It must not suffer from the procedural lapses that might weaken its position in court as well as in the public sphere.

Meanwhile, the government and opposition parties are butting heads in the parliament. The opposition parties demanded that Prime Minister Shah furnish replies to the queries of lawmakers over the government’s policies and programmes. They boycotted the House meetings after PM Shah assigned Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle to respond to the lawmakers’ questions on his behalf. Of course, there is a legal ground for the PM’s decision not to appear in the parliament but Nepali people, who voted him to power with a landslide victory, are eager to see how their Prime Minister delivers his flamboyant speech in the parliament.

Phenomenal event 

The rise of Balendra Shah in Nepali politics is a phenomenal event in the contemporary history of the country. A heartthrob of hundreds of thousands of youths, he inspired a generation to be a part of change by means of ballots. Youths had shown a clear disdain for politics sullied by the old generation leaders who have been cashing in on their sufferings in the political movements of the past. Chronic instability, misrule, corruption, poverty, unemployment and inflation have taken the starch out of the nation’s inner strength. Balen Shah came to motivate them, rekindling the masses disappointed by the repeated malfeasance of the so-called established parties. The youths saw a model in him and did their best to put him on a pedestal.

Against the backdrop of this monumental moment, Balen’s voters want him to be the epitome of unity and harmony among the Nepalis. In the past, politicians of different hues turned out to be divisive figures, further fracturing society. Now the nation needs a leader who will unite the people and work tirelessly to realise their humble aspirations. They want Balen’s public image soaring through his flawless performance in every legitimate platform. As a popular leader, Balen Shah should initiate dialogue to diverse sections of people. For a democratically elected Prime Minister, the parliament is the first port of call to speak his mind. Without Prime Minister’s vigorous presence, the parliament loses its sheen and efficacy and the people fail to see their leader in real verbal action.

(The author is the Managing Editor of this daily.)