Former Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha, who is known as a constitutional jurist, has his own tall personality in the judicial world. A chapter has been written about Shrestha, who spent 40 years of his life in the court, in the book 'Towering Judges: A Comparative Study of Constitutional Judges' written by Chinese University of Hong Kong co-professor Dr. Mara Malgodi and published by Cambridge University Press.

Shrestha, who is also the former president of SAARC Law, a regional organization of South Asian judges, lawyers and professors, is also its patron. Shrestha Jung Bahadur, who is also a member of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), is also the drafter of the current criminal code that replaces the Rana-era Civil Code. The complete part of the conversation between Umesh Chauhan, Ghanshyam Khadka and Durga Dulal

of Kantipur about the constitutional amendment, the recent disputes between the constitutional bodies and the court:  in court  There is open political participation. Despite the bar's recommendation, people from the party are coming. In this way, how can a person who has come to the party's quota separate from the party and give justice? This is a question to ask others, not me . Because I am less a consumer of justice and more a judge . I have no experience of winning or losing a case . So this is a question that needs to be asked out . Many of our efforts in the past have been spent on improving and modernizing the judiciary's physical resources management. The result is something you are seeing. There are glaring differences between the structure of the court yesterday and the structure of today. 
The remaining justice is a perennial question. Every day we have to look and see if justice has been done. Physical structure is one thing. The spirit of justice is a different thing. Justice is spiritually alive or not? It is a question that comes up from time to time. 

How can I say that justice is dead? But physical facilities alone do not mean that people get the feeling of justice. The physical structure should not be allowed to become strong and justice to become weak. As now there are issues and complaints in the justice system or in the administration of justice. There have been public comments. In some respects, even here, that subject may feel uncomfortable . But is there a practice to give feedback on such matters? If not, who will come to ask us?  I don't even have a place to say . 

Where is the problem in appointing judges?

The structures that have been set with the Constitutional Council or the Judicial Council are made by the projection of political interests. Now if there is politicization in the structure of the process, then where is the result of depoliticization? They have created a structure in the constitution with the aim of capturing power for a long time. Because of that, after this practice is continued, you can say that there is politicization in the court and in the judge. We have said while making the constitution that

should not be politicized. It should have been written in the constitution that politics should not be allowed to dominate the court! Shouldn't it be said at that time that the structure in this constitution will lead to politicization? We were shouting . No one heard . Where did you shout ? Where did the people put pressure on the Constituent Assembly during the making of that constitution?
Therefore, the politicization of the time has shocked the self-respect of the constitutional organs. The confidence has been shocked. Capacity has been hit. Their validity has also been hit. Now, if you look at it, you will say that this person is a party person . If you say that it is independent, then half of its recognition will be the same.

Now he has to confirm that he is not me . It should also be further confirmed that I am not. Due to this politicization, the constitutional organs have lost their confidence . Jobs have also been affected. Errors in the appointment system of the executive, legislature, and judiciary are due to the special effect of politicization.
It is established that there is a division between the parties for appointment to the court  is . It looks like that in practice too . Whose fault is it ?  The Judicial Council had to be responsible for the appointment of

courts. The Constitutional Council should be responsible for the appointments made by the Constitutional Council. The structure of both these bodies is party. Like let's look at the Constitutional Council . Who's there ? The Prime Minister is the President. Aren't the Chief Justice, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the National Assembly, etc. all political people? Apart from the Chief Justice, there are many political people, so who will be appointed? Can the Chief Justice alone with five political men make a difference in that decision ? Certainly cannot . 

and look at the justice council . The Council is chaired by the Chief Justice, a member of the Law Minister, a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a representative of the Bar Association and a representative of the Prime Minister. Apart from the Chief Justice and the senior most judges, there are people of political recommendation . The majority belongs to them. If three others are non-judicial, how can they be separated from politics. 
Now, what is the basis that the Chief Justice and the judge can appoint a person who thinks it is appropriate? Always have to compromise . Made an agreement with the Law Minister and must do so with other members as well. 

Now, how can the appointment system be kept like this and the judge's face be fair, independent, neutral, and very competent. What I can't say again is that the person who comes from this process must be incompetent, I can't say that he is incompetent. But the capable and the good cannot come. Who will not be able to become capable and creative and who will take responsibility. Whoever appointed him should take responsibility! Will the political parties that make such a structure not take responsibility? So they have to take responsibility . And the Constitutional and Justice Council that recommends it should take charge. 
If there are some deficiencies made by the judiciary today, the government should take responsibility for it. Parliament should take . Constituent Assembly should take . Political parties should take . The judge should take the initial responsibility and the rest should also be partners. If he makes a wrong decision, the judge will take responsibility first. Who is committing a structural error ? It is the parties. I attended the Constituent Assembly and said that this structure would be politicized at that time. But this thing was not heard . And now it is not found that it has been politicized . Since this was brought by political parties with the intention of capturing power, they should take responsibility.  

Before becoming a judge, whatever the background, whatever the party, but after becoming a judge, all yesterday's relationships must be broken . The necessary conditions for a judge must be met. This is the principle. Even in America, political people are appointed everywhere. You may be more fair than I am or you may not be as accurate as I am. This is a matter of personal practice of personal ability. The systemic thing is that you have to separate yourself from politics when you come there. 

Now who should be sorry for this? Who should take charge? It is not my opinion that the judiciary should not be taken, but whoever recruits in the judiciary will take responsibility or not?

I said during the parliamentary hearing that the parliament should now take over the judiciary. Because  If everything is in the hands of the Parliament through the hearing, why can't he take responsibility or get away with why the wrong choice was made? 

We have not encouraged those who do good and punished those who do bad . This environment may be due to our constitutional system. The constitutional system is a clean, healthy and capable service provider. Dal is the one who works behind . But we are poisoning service and justice by wearing party clothes and going towards political partisanship . This is a worrying situation . The parties came to be revolutionary and for change but they are not in that state now. 
You said that the ability to preserve the momentum of change did not appear . Are you trying to say if you can't or don't want to make a fundamental change? 

The key question is how quickly the transformative forces became status quo. I am worried that they will soon remain status quo. How revolutionary were yesterday . They are now status quo. Now there is no revolutionary party. The place of revolutionaries is vacant. The main thing is how quickly those who claim to be changemakers or revolutionaries can turn into status quoists. If it is not going to be revolutionary like this, how will it work!  

The current of the leader in the constitution was very strong . He said that he did not touch the flow of the people upside down and upside down. You have been publicly saying that the country is lost by the people and won by the leader. Explain it clearly or what do you mean
 ?  

Constitution is for the people . Yes for democracy . Is for the security of the country . Is for justice . If the people don't feel justice, if they don't feel good governance, then they don't feel prosperity in life, if they don't feel opportunity, what did that constitution change? So-and-so's son's power was created by so-and-so's son is not a transformation! Someone used to sit in that seat or in the Prime Minister's chair! It would have happened even if there was a dictatorial system . No matter what the arrangement was, he would have stayed!  That's not the only change!  Just because one journalist became the prime minister, it is not possible to say that all journalists have been transformed! What did the people get? People are looking for education, health, employment and prosperity. How much did it get? Now we have only increased the capacity to send more people abroad . We have sent many people in the past as well. Do you call it prosperity now? If the doctors started going abroad, what benefit did we get from the medical college? There will be no agriculture, no forests and no doctors. And what is the benefit if we invest in this area ?   

The implementation of fundamental rights has not been good . The benefit of which people will get . It has not been implemented. Right to employment, right to education has not been implemented. That's why I said that this constitution was won by the leader and lost by the people. When the leader wins, the people must also win. It was not possible for the leader to win alone and the people to lose. But there was a new class division between the leaders and the people. The leader cannot be touched and the people cannot stand . 

You have been claiming that you have separated from the court after your retirement. But why society looks at you in every big and complex issue . You said that you have not seen any judge's house, but have you seen your house?

There is nothing about this that I should be too happy about . Justice reform is a perennial question. Today we are not confident that the ideal is at the point and sit on the occult basis . Now some questions have been raised. Questions have been raised from various angles regarding justice, system, and appointment. If they are up, they are not worth ignoring . Because to ignore is to suppress . When pressed, it becomes very explosive. That's why I am saying that the dimension of reform starts from somewhere . 

in the first ten years  The Justice Reform Commission was formed. Not so these days. Now the justice system should be reformed strategically from within. But what about the limits of the strategic improvement plan, I can make it within my circle. 
The dimensions of the wider reforms are necessary . Anyone concerned or the government or  The Parliament or the Judiciary itself should act. There is a slightly larger area beyond strategic reform . That could be the amendment of the constitution. There may also be legal reforms. Institutional reform may also take place. Procedural improvements may also occur. Reforms have different dimensions. A reform program or commission may also be needed to address or understand this. If this is the case, I think we could have helped in a more creative way. 

He is spending his vacation time as a former Chief Justice. Based on the experience of 10 years of retirement, how do you see the administration of justice and the justice sector from outside the court?

My first service entry was not from the Justice Service. I entered this field as an Administrative Service Officer. I was initially a PDO i.e. Panchayat Development Officer. It is the predecessor of the current LDO. Initially I was transferred to Nepalgunj as a PDO.

Then I came to justice service. I have also observed the justice service as a PDO in the beginning, and later as a judge. Now I am looking at retirement. At that time there were regional, zonal and district courts. The judge was unrepentant. They didn't even have a vehicle. One had to trudge or ask someone else for a lift. The dictator had the power. Since the police administration was under the Chief Commissioner, it was customary to consider the CDO. It was their present day. The judge used to sit quietly in a corner. Judges were higher in rank but they had no influence in the society.

I remember a funny incident once. I had become a judge. The CDO of Dhanusha district told him to go to the plantation. Since everyone respects CDO, I also went along saying no. He took them with him when he brought them but left him when he returned. After the CDO who had called me came back without telling me to go, I sat very innocently.

At that time I was very embarrassed. Neither come on foot nor have any means. Later, an engineer from the Electricity Authority took him to the court to go. It felt that whether or not there was a vehicle made a difference to the independence of the judiciary. Around the year 2046/47, I told this problem to the then Chief Justice Vishwanath Upadhyay. Now the service facility is more attractive than before. Since that day, we have reached the present court.

Now talking about post-retirement, I am not close to court and justice. I don't even know what happens day by day. We don't even have regular contact. Even the law papers do not reach me. I cannot even know the manner in which the judgments were made, how they were written. I get information about what judgments have been made by looking at what you have printed in the newspaper.

I used to take information from it. And I hear casual comments from people who visit me. That's why I can't think that it is still in the court. I do not regularly have the opportunity to be directly involved or to form an official opinion. However, from the outside, it seems that the court would have been more respectable, credible and accessible to more people. If you ask the

court, you will hear a review of the progress that we have solved so many cases, so directly, so many thousands, and we have arrived here. The report is also created in the same way. But people are not very interested in that. It is not that these things are not important, but the importance of the people is something else. People have an interest and an interest in where issues have heated or troubled their minds.

Even if thousands of cases are solved, if you don't solve one case that people understand, it is not considered that justice is done or the case is solved. You may have solved thousands of cases satisfactorily, but if you did not solve one case that the people understood in the way the people thought, they will again say - you did not decide properly and the case was not solved. Therefore, the court has to sit as a judge in the court with such a challenge that should be complete without any condition or exception. A judge will never get a discount saying that one case is bad and the other will be improved.

was almost eclipsed after the retirement of other Chief Justices. But there is an understanding of the society that your influence is always present in the court, what is your opinion?

I didn't know whose society you are talking about. Now whether you call it coincidence or sponsorship, I don't know. But I am not going to comment on the court. What a problem, my religion doesn't allow me to postpone my 40th year of working in the court. Even habit does not give.

I am grateful to the court. But it doesn't mean that you should only praise the court by swearing. The information may not be very up to date with me, nor do I have contact details as I am not in court at the moment. Once a contempt of court case was filed, after asking to appear in person, I arrived with a written response, that was final. I have not gone before that and I have not gone back. I haven't even gone on a law day. Please don't call me, I said I won't come.

but I still find myself connecting. Where does my presence appear? As far as I am concerned, the decision I have made since I was in office is a precedent or if the ideas given there are repeated again and again in the discussion, there is no need to involve myself in the court. If I do not know the decision of the court, I cannot say whether it is right or wrong. What I have done is not the last. Any bench of the Supreme Court is free to reverse the judgments I have passed in the past if there is any problem with them.

Trying to find out that I am in mysterious relationships in one way or another is a futile attempt. I have no secrets. I am an open minded person. Even when I was in office, I never kept anything secret and I still don't. If I have done something wrong while still in office, I have told the media to hold me to account. So what do I have to hide now?

How many judges are new to the court now? They will only have a casual acquaintance with me. Only one or two are old. I have no relationship with them either. Now it was not said that they do not know each other, how many times they have debated in my courtroom as lawyers, but it is only a general acquaintance. There is no intimate relationship with anyone.

They remember my judgment when it comes to privacy, call detail disputes and telephone taping. You bring those judgments into the limelight from time to time! Sometimes the editor writes, sometimes the reporter makes the news. I have decided many cases in such areas. I claim that these matters have a legacy because I have written judgments in various fields such as corruption, life cases, constitutional cases, fundamental rights, human rights, gender, and environment. Now the people are expressing their dissatisfaction and raising questions about the 'delivery' of the state agencies, especially the government.

Parliamentarians continue to pass bills without reading them. There is also an extreme stake in organizations such as the Authority. How are you evaluating it?

I have no experience with these questions. I have not yet had a happy or sad experience in direct contact with any entity. As an ordinary citizen, I will also form an opinion based on the perception of the trends in the society and the information from around. That's how I have my opinion. I have no such experience of being rejected or hurt by any body. But as far as the effectiveness of the work done by the state machinery is concerned at present, I do not think there is a satisfactory assessment.

We need faster change. Faster development is needed. Say education, say health, any field needs rapid development. We are not allowed to do random work there. The implementation of the constitution is also not to be taken lightly. The implementation of the constitution is still stuck in the trial. The situation is now that there are always tests and results cannot be given.

10 years is an appropriate period for constitutional review. While looking at it like that, the executive, legislature and judiciary or other constitutional organs should now be evaluated on the level of service delivery by linking services to productivity and should be reviewed in the constitution.

I see that the productivity of constitutional services is not the way it should be from these agencies of the state. Institutions are not productive of anything. Parliament cannot make laws. Even the laws made do not seem stable. One can look at the controversy in the making of the law of 'cooling off period'.

The 'cooling off period' case has shown that there is fraud in the process of law making! Others may not be exposed at all. There was a debate in the parliament that the end would have been the same. It does not seem that there is a long debate on such and such a bill in the Parliament. It seems that the debate is focused only on how to extend the vacant power in the parliament, who will form the government and who will be overthrown. Acts to create

s have not been made. Federalization is blocked without making an Act. Development is also blocked. Now they don't even make a civil law, they don't even make a police law, what do the rest do? The civil law is the law that is needed on the first day of the federal government! Well, why hasn't it been built yet? Similarly, the Police Act is also a law that is needed on the first day! If the law that should be made on the first day, the first year, the first month is not made for 10 years, what will it be called?

If we continue to move the policy like this, when will we implement this constitution?

My concern is that the constitution has not been implemented. Many articles of the constitution were written. So many articles of fundamental rights were written, but why was it implemented so that one article did not come! That is, why was not implemented? The implementation of fundamental rights has been lost! The fundamental right is the right of the people. Shouldn't this be implemented?

why the law of fundamental rights was not made! The laws that were made were also stated as prescribed. They do not specify what is specified, when will the people get it after specifying the right? For the implementation of fundamental rights, institutions are needed, money is needed, procedures are needed. But there is no need to say anything as prescribed. There are 31 fundamental rights. How many claims are there in court? Someone went to say that I will get a job under the right of employment? Is it the right to health or the right to my health? Have you ever seen someone get a job? It is said that a house will be built for a Dalit. The constitution says to build a house for once.

Have you seen anyone get a house? No one wanted a house for 10 years? If you don't need it for 10 years, you may need it now! If it is not needed or if it has already been obtained, why should these fundamental rights be kept in the constitution? It means that the fundamental rights were not implemented. The state has not shown any implementation capacity. Parliament was the institution that was supposed to make laws, they did not make them. The executive should have made the

, he should have taken the initiative. But didn't take it. He is aware that if no one pressured him, he would have been able to live peacefully. Now that this law is not a law, who will go to court to ask for it? A law is needed first for demands. This is the reason why it is stated in the Act as prescribed in the Constitution with the intention of not doing anything!

may mean that it is not specified. A paradoxical practice was that of lazily spending the day doing minimal work, reluctantly or under compulsion.

It is a well-established observation that there is division between the parties for appointment even in court and in practice it seems to be the same. What is the root of it?

The structure of the various councils, including the Constitutional Council or the Judicial Council, is made by the projections of political interests. If there is politicization in the structure, then where is the result of depoliticization? They have created a structure in the constitution with the intention of capturing power for a long time. Because of that, since this practice has been going on continuously, can you say that there has been politicization in the court, in the judge?

We have said that there should be no politicization while making the constitution. It should have been written in the constitution that politics should not be allowed to dominate the court! Shouldn't it be said at that time that the structure of this constitution leads to politicization? We shouted. did not hear

Where did you cry? Where did the people put pressure on the Constituent Assembly during the making of that constitution? Therefore, due to the politicization of the time, the self-esteem of the constitutional organs has been affected. Confidence has been hit. Capacity has been pushed. Their legitimacy has also been affected. Now, while you are watching, you call this so-and-so a party man. If you say that he is independent, then half of his recognition will be the same. Now he has to confirm that he is not me. Thus, political parts have lost self-confidence. Works have also been affected.

now it was to be responsible for the appointment of the court while talking to the appointment. The Constitutional Council has been to be responsible for the appointment for the appointment of the Constitutional Council. The structure of these two bodies are the hallmark. As let's see that the Constitutional Council. Who are there? Prime Minister chairperson. He is not all the political guys, including Speaker, Speaker, Leaders, President of the National Assembly, the Chairman of the National Assembly? Can Principles make that decision aim with five political people alone? Certainly not.

let us now look at the justice council. The Council has a Chief Justice Speaker, Minister Chief Minister of Supreme Court judge and a representative of a bar Association and a representative of a prime minister. The Chief Justice and the Senior Judge are a man of political recommendations. The majority is of them. If three other non-non-communications are, their decision can be separated from politics!

they need to take responsibility for the political parties as the political parties have brought by political parties. Whatever afternoon, any background should be broken, no matter where the judge judge, but the relationship between the judge is required to fulfill the necessary condition. This is the principle of being in the world. I said that the parliament should be taken to charge of the court during the hospital. Because, if everything has come to the hands of everything through hearing, it will be to take responsibility or escape why is wrong when it is wrong? Scene-Break had to take charge of hearing. The appointment had to take care of the appointment. Workers had to take charge of the work. Where or where do you get to escape? Where did we give this systematic environment? We have not punished and who do good to do good. This environment is not due to our constitutional system.

constitutional system is to give clean, healthy and able service. The parties will work back. It means that the parties use the system that service is allome. Would it be said that the medicine will not give medicine that the doctor appoints by a political party? Even the medicine of diarrhea will also give my party first, then I will say that I will give to others? Should medicine be given medicine, is it party? No! But we are going to the political party by poisoning service and justice to poison. This is a worried situation.

came out where the constitution was successful and where it was failed to review where the failure and to make a mechanism from where and give it out to you. Did the parties have such 'offers'?

should be reviewed according to the constitution. Not in 10 years? The constitution is to review the confidence. It is compelled by that constitution. I would have had a commission to impose a commission, reviewing, or supervising a constitution on the issue of implementing the constitution on the constitution.

is not the case. This law was reported reporting in this month's order. He helped to continue review of the constitution. This provision in the constitution of Kenya. We didn't do that. In 10 years, commissions talk about repeatedly. In the 10 years, we organized that if they are wrong, even if they are wrong.

now all the taps in the 10 years were correct, more less streams were used more than that it is wrong. The political leader used the other streams, useful others. They made an eating tallery active, but not using the streams. The election streams, the government, was used to repeat of the current sector and repeatedly repeated tehathi, but the article in the people were very low. It was not true for communication people.

has not to go to waste after the constitution should not go to waste, not to go to waste, touching the same language. Everyone is afraid that anxiety is a box of Paderra if talking about the constitution. Fear, it is afraid that it cannot be possible. But this is more likely to attend the culture by showing fear. Culture is a culture of continuing the post in which you are in a verse. Did you give to the leadership of the committee to be formed to amend the constitution? not stoY-Break. I have also heard in the news. I haven't met or told me. My information, my information, my involvement is wrong to bring my involvement in the market. My name was not thrown that in the 'Public Carren: The plain of the leaf in the

constitution was very signed. If it was not over, and touched the clauses of the people. Did you mean that this is what people lost and won by the leader?

is for the Constitution. Is for democracy. Is for the safety of the country. Is for justice. The people do not feel judiciary, what the constitution did the constitution convert Does it mean that the power of the minor son's son has received! That sitting in that seat or someone in the Prime Minister's chair placed. Although there was a dictatorial system. Anyone lived by any law. That is that the same change! Just because a journalist is a prime minister, it is not true of all journalists converted! If doctors began to go abroad, what was the benefit of our medical college? There will not be any agriculture, no longer will be wine, not the doctor. And what's the benefit, then did we invest it?

is repeatedly in disputes why the formation of constitutional ejlan?

is a problem in the constitution. Because of the Constitution Design, there is a problem now. Now cannot be corrected. Non-supreme court can solve, nor do not have the chief bandh. What is written is flawed. What happens to five different opinions on the recommendation of the Judaism's recommendation? Don't even review the constitutional Ezelas? If it was not a constitutional session, the Supreme Court used two judges that talking about. Then three were sold. I was five nervous by everyone.

constitutional ecycle filed by the constitutional court, but no one is responsible for it. We do not need a constitutional zeal or court, said that the Supreme Court was a constitutional court. But our recognition did not be heard.

Supreme Court is now trapped now. Why is the dispute that not to implement the ball scheme in the Constitutional Egela between the judges? Is it appropriate to apply the ball process in your opinion or not? Looks confused in the court right now about where the

Blower is going. There is a dispute over not to go or do not go to the constitutional cheer. What the constitution has made arrangements is to be managed until the amendment of the program. I don't want to talk about this. But what happens if you are now running a cabinet from a ball-test? Do not say what minister, how to make it. What did the police do that? What happens if this happens in university, hospitals, and every commission? Even in order to authority, what happens to this?

is the bumal option that is disbelief over this leadership. Now I don't want to say that good or bad. The system they choose is, now who made it should take the responsibility. All judges are not experted on all issues. I may not know the subject you know. The Cirror to Serve Integrity should be done. If we stand that five divisions in court, who stays in what to stay does not mean that he is separated on what basis. You must choose on the basis of your suitability, competence and experience. Whether the ball I don't believe in 'bidden' and 'acadental Zestis'. I believe in expertise. I believe in experience and ability. The then president of the

Bar Association was due to contempt, now Bar Council invited the Chief Justice in his annual program. Why is this happening?

practitioners not to ask percentage of legislation. The bar in the court of the court is the integral of the bar. I don't feel otherwise without the Bar Council. The Sunolaison Make a good deal of this priceless time. & Nbsp;