Parmeshwar Devkota

Some rich countries in the world are so proud that they have stable democracy, and hold elections of all levels on a regular basis. Their claims, being affluent and well-managed nations, can be right at the procedural level, but they are always weak from participation point of view. As for example, France recently held first round of its regional election. The voters’ turnout was at only 27 per cent. This may be record low. The UK and the USA have similar situation when it comes to voters’ turnout.
Contrary to theirs, we have an enthusiastic participation. Even in the times of Panchayat and the Maoist insurgency, Nepali citizens’ turnout in elections was quite encouraging. However, we are reeling from an uncertainty these days. There is no longer the government with two-thirds majority in the parliament. The House of Representatives (HoR) has been dissolved and the Supreme Court is hearing the petitions seeking the House reinstatement.
Talking about the qualification of justices and their conduct is not in line with an independent judiciary. But someone should be courageous enough to talk about their conduct and capacity on two grounds - humanistic and justice. From the humanistic point of view, justices are not different from any other officials. They must have their own social and religious values and do’s and don’ts. They may have their own inclination at least during their school and college days. They must have personal prejudices and idiosyncrasies of their own.
But, from the justice delivery point of view, they are different. With their long practice and schooling, they are able to keep themselves above personal bias and develop logic and power of decision making. They develop reasons for not passing arguments on certain cases to avert unwanted social anomalies. Wisdom of a judge can be compared with the wisdom of Tathagata, Buddha.
A Jataka story gives us the insight into Buddha’s justice giving capacity. Some people in the society wanted to test knowledge of Tathagata. So, they made a plot to test his wisdom. A Yakshini, a paranormal being, came in the shape of a woman and kidnapped a baby of another woman and claimed that it was hers.
As the quarrel erupted between two women over the child, the people around gathered and led them to Buddha’s hermitage. The two women claimed that the child was theirs. It was not possible to decide the matter biologically. So, Tathagata purposed a tug of war between them. He drew a line on the ground and asked both of them to stand opposite. He told one woman to catch the hands of baby and another woman the legs. As they caught the baby, Tathagata ordered them to pull the boy in the opposite direction with the force.
As the real mother saw the baby crying owing to pain, she also began weeping and said, ‘Let her take the baby, rather than let him die in agony’. As Buddha saw the reaction of the actual mother, he returned the baby to her hands and punished the fake mother, Yakshini. So the judges should deliver justice like Buddha. They must possess wisdom and discerning ability so that they will be able to give right verdict no matter how tricky the litigation cases are.