Girish Chandra Lal is a former Supreme Court judge. Lal, who was born in Mahottari and grew up in Dhanusha, was appointed as a judge in the Court of Appeal in 2048 as a judicial appointment after the restoration of democracy while practicing as a lawyer in Janakpur. After working at the appellate level for seventeen years, he became a judge in the Supreme Court and retired in 2072 due to age limit.

Even after his official retirement from the court, he continues to study, observe and update the judicial activities and its developments. The famous 'Red Commission' prepared by him, who is also the chairman of the Tikapur incident investigation commission, has not been made public by the government so far. Ghanshyam Khadka of Kantipur and Jaisingh Mahara talk with Girish Chandra Lal

about the vindictive behavior of the government and the impact of recent developments on the rule of law:

The rule of law says - more than law No one is above. Where do you find the rule of law now? 

Let's understand this in a little more detail. To understand what the rule of law is and why we need it, we must first understand our human society. This society is not singular but plural. Man cannot live alone, he is forced to live in a family. We have an obligation to live in the society and we also have an obligation to live in the country. Similarly, we have an obligation to live in this world. As the range increases, so does the variety. Meanwhile some methods are devised to make life easier. The rule of law is for everyone to live without it. That's why we need a method. 

Photos : Deepak KC/Kantipur

It can be seen that the modern form of rule of law is being applied almost everywhere in the world. Currently in the world, the principles of human rights such as freedom of life, freedom of press and expression, right to justice, right to equality have guided the states. A similar principle existed in our Hindu society even before this modern legal framework came into force. It is also important to understand that. "Law" is an English word and "Kanoon" is an Urdu word. In our language we called it method. We have no other word for law. Even then there was jurisprudence. Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti etc. are examples of that. At that time jurisprudence itself was called religion. The word law did not exist. However, the word "religion" which was not only held the spirituality, but also bound the society. 

What is seen in the light of all that, whenever the rule of law is followed, then the society and the country have progressed. The guardian has also been good. Whenever it is destroyed, there is an upheaval in the society. I see that whoever has come to power with us now is trying to destroy it. But he who tries to destroy himself will destroy himself. Because the method keeps us safe.  Why is it that the rule of the

method must be accepted? What is its methodology?

The rule of law is brought in so that no one can pass without bumping into anyone. If you do what is written in the law, no one will be wronged. However, one does not realize this while doing it. But finally the result is good. Because, if the method is broken, efforts and movement to improve it will be forced. And the mechanisms become stronger than before. 

There is a saying in Sanskrit – 

dharma eva hoto hanti dharma rakshati rakshitah.

Tasmadharmo na Hantavya: Ma no Dharmao Hatovdhit..

What this means is that if religion is destroyed, it will be destroyed, if it is protected, it will be protected. Therefore, religion should not be destroyed in order to prevent the perishable religion from perishing.

This is a big philosophical thing. This is also the answer to why we should accept the rule of law. As I said, religion here is also law and law. It is meant here to say that if he destroys the laws, rules and laws, he will also destroy himself. Religion speaks of both spirituality and jurisprudence in us. As far as I can see, compliance with the law is equally mandatory on both sides. The first stanza of the

Upanashid is –  story break

ten tyakten bhunjitha ma gridha: kasyasviddhanam..

When I read its first line I experienced joy. It says, this world is the abode of God. Therefore, do not enjoy the world by being attached. It says don't indulge. It speaks of renunciation, of samadhi. While talking about such a high flight, it is written at the end, 'Ma gridh: kasyasviddhanam' ie, do not steal someone's wealth. At that time, when they talked about such a big sacrifice, why should the property of one not be taken by the other? As I understand it now, that is the method. Because, property rights were inherent in it. Someone said not to take anything of someone's property, wealth and ownership. 

Jupiter was the master of the gods and Venus the master of the Asuras. It is also written in Shukra Niti that method is the king of kings. That is why it is said that no one is above the law. Because, history has witnessed great loss to the perpetrators due to its non-compliance. King Gyanendra broke the law, he himself was not thrown, but the monarchy itself was thrown because the law was always being messed with. If the king had done well, if he had stayed within the rules and boundaries, would public opinion have gone against him? If this applies to the sovereign king, what is the reason why it does not apply to the incumbent who tries to subvert the rule of law? Our philosophy does not say that if we destroy religion or law, it destroys itself. Those who try to break the law will be killed themselves. Therefore, it is said that the rule of law must be accepted. 

But, after being in power, people forget all this, don't they? 

If the power is harnessed, the power increases. If misused, it will decrease. Those who come to power do not understand this. As far as he's concerned, the more I break the rules, the stronger I get. This is delusion. If someone forms a party or organization, creates a center of power and comes to power, he is bound to remain in power. Because he trembles with the fear that if he is not in power, his mistakes will be discovered. And abuses power to stay in power. In this way one can do duschakra. And the method is enough.

If that is the case, the rule of law will always be broken, won't it? How to stop it?

is, there is always a threat to the method from the ruler. However, efforts should be made to stop it. There is no such thing as complete success. However, there is no complete failure either. If there was no struggle against the Ranas, would democracy have come? If the people had not fought against the Panchayat, would democracy have been restored? If there was no people's movement against the monarchy that wanted to be autocratic, would the republic have come today? would not come

Why is the situation better today than yesterday, yesterday we warned those trying to break the law and some progress was made. Even with that progress, attempts to break the law continued. We spoke against that too. We are still speaking today, we must speak. Speaking like this, it may seem that today's results are not good, but ten to twenty years from now, the situation will be better. Therefore, the efforts to promote good practices and discourage bad ones should be continued. Every day is getting better, the result is visible after ten years. 

If someone catches a citizen in the crime of a false case by using the police, whose job is to stop it? 

The first is the court. Because as the situation is, the aim of the leaders seems to be to go to power and earn money. This is unfortunate. For this, he ends up abusing power to stay in power.  From the

, workers are forced to say what their leader did. We the people have a responsibility to prevent and stop this. No matter how many reforms have been done, there is a power in the society to handle it from time to time. That is an enlightened force consisting of journalists, lawyers, judges etc. Journalists can sometimes be bad as individuals. But overall journalism is not bad. Lawyers are bad as a person. But when its perception comes as a fence, good comes. Even the judge may be one or two bad, but when he is accountable as a court, he also stands in favor of the rule of law.  The role of the court is more to maintain the rule of

method. However, there is concern that the court is also being affected by mob psychology. What if this really happens? 

This is wrong. It should be criticized. The court cannot be intimidated. Even if the court has done something wrong, it should be accepted. However, criticism and criticism should not be left out. Everyone should obey the order given by the court. Even if it is a wrong order or decision, it should be accepted. However, that does not mean that one cannot comment on that order or judgment. Proper criticism of the court, criticism is what gives it the moral strength to do good work. Therefore, in the court, one should speak for good effect so that there is no bad effect on the administration of justice. 

Public surveillance of the activities of the state apparatus has a governmental character that violates the freedom of press and expression provided by the constitution while performing its responsibility. He was detained for nine days for trying to file a fake case against Kailash Sirohia, president of Kantipur Media Group, for writing news about Home Minister Ravi Lamichhane's involvement in misappropriation of cooperative savings. How do you see this overall case as a former judge?

This is an unjust and anti-press freedom incident. This accusation made by the police was not a subject to be arrested, no. The government looked for a reason on 'non-issue' and revenge is not acceptable to anyone who deserves justice. If there is a mistake in the date of birth and the number, it should be rectified, not arrested with the intention of suing. Because, there is no fault of the holder. In the citizenship certificate, the details are written together, in other documents it may be different. It is ironic to make this a matter of revenge. 

But what happened was that the government had wrong intentions and the crowd said it was right. It can also affect the court? 

Everything has a limit and everything has a good result in the end. The crowd may not have understood today, they may have been misled by someone, but the truth does not change. Whatever it is, it will eventually stop. Yes, there may be some deviation in the court. Because populism destroys society. Some of its organs may be affected. Ultimately, no one can go beyond the boundaries of the law. 

I see a lack of common sense in our society. It is also the responsibility of the media to make the citizens aware of this, the state has done it. Enlightened people of the civil society should also engage in this work. Take Sirohiyaji's case for example. The matter has not yet become a case, the court has not entered into its facts. A

is merely procedurally involving the court in extending the requested time for investigation. But here everyone called it an issue. And if the deadline has been extended by the order of the court. Even if the court extends the deadline, this is not an order to keep the case until the case is over. Others, even the responsible person, are arrested by a court order, which is fundamentally wrong. The court only said that some time is needed for the investigation. It must be caught, it is not meant to be caught. 

But justice died when people who shouldn't be in prison had to be in prison? 

yes, died. Our country is not yet in a position to give full justice. In the UK, there is a liberal system where one judge can appeal to another judge against an order of detention denied by a judge. However, this situation has not come to us. It's not a question of a person, it's a question of trends. Rulers tend to break the law. 

What kind of results did this arbitrary tendency finally give?

gives good results. You will be surprised to hear. But what I'm saying is that abusers of power have always gone down in history. The king committed a great injustice by imprisoning BP Koirala. However, the result was that three million Nepalis got democracy. Mahatma Gandhi was shot dead. However, the whole of India became one. This is what happens when trying to solve the media. Media becomes more powerful. It is more pure. It is the rulers who break the law. 

Some also commented on why they spoke on the pending case, didn't they? 

, many people ask me why I spoke about the pending case in the court. While this is not the case. No charge sheet has been filed. Someone had to speak to explain this. Another thing, even if it is pending in the court, one must speak to highlight the truth of the case. This is what freedom of speech is for, after all. Because, the more people speak up for the truth, the more moral strength the courts have to deliver justice. When everyone raised their voices in favor of the restoration of the parliament, the court gave two 'courageous' judgments.

Bar, media and civil society leaders have a big role to play in this. I felt bad as soon as I heard that Sirohiyaji was illegally arrested on false charges of citizenship. He was born and brought up in Janakpur. He is a man from my village. It is my religion to speak out when my village is wronged. Not only a former judge, I am also a citizen of this country. At such a time I felt it was not right to remain silent. And I spoke. I said that it would be easy for judicial purposes. Because, the public information of the truth should be given to everyone when necessary. If such things happen, it is not acceptable for us. 

However, the situation is the opposite. Now the crowd has forced Mah Jodi to apologize for speaking up for Satya. What will happen to democracy in this situation? 

There was no need to fear people like Mah Jodi. This is unfortunate. All their respect and prestige are given by the society itself. However, not everyone has earned a foothold. Not everyone has stopped talking. A couple of scares. But not everyone is afraid. This is the silver circle in the dark cloud. 

Judges are also afraid of this? Even the court is afraid? Can't it be? Could be

ing. One or two judges will be scared. Even in the court, it will be left behind. After all, there are people. However, the court is obliged to judge because no one has the facility to go beyond the limits of the law and bring down the facts. 

The staff mechanism of our so-called permanent government is afraid that the temporary ruling minister will not do many illegal things. Why is this? 

What is not given by law should not be done by anyone's order. However, employees act as if they are forced to do so when asked by the Minister or the Prime Minister. There are two reasons for this - hope and fear. Because of the greed of getting something, some people do things that should not be done by acting as guardians. It ultimately makes them worse themselves. There is also the fear of doing something bad if you don't obey. Because of that, they end up doing things they don't want to do. But not everyone can say that. There are those who are not swayed by fear and greed.

Why did it happen that everything was fine when the state machinery was run anyway and was applauded by the crowd?