Prakashman Singh Raut is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Raut, who has created a true and fearless image as a lawyer, has been a permanent judge of the Supreme Court and has been holding the responsibilities as the Chief Justice.

Having spent 33 years as a lawyer and 8 years in the Supreme Court, he took over as Chief Justice on 20 October 2081.

He has been claiming that there will be no compromise on corruption and good governance, saying that he will take charge of the judiciary after assuming the office of the Supreme Court. Part of the conversation with Raut in the Supreme Court after the Judiciary was also targeted during the 23rd and 24th Gen-G movement Kantipur : 

The Supreme Court with its history has been destroyed by the arson attack on 24 August. Can you give us a little summary of what happened that day? 

Our daily life begins with the process of pulling balls. On 24 August, all of us judges gathered. The tossing was over and the bench was formed. The situation in the country was certainly not good. This was not something we were not aware of. The judges later held that there was no standing for the bench to sit. We had a general discussion. We decided to hold the court again as justice cannot be stopped. And everyone's sitting started. 

The sessions continued uninterrupted until tea time. Lawyers came and argued. The judges also ordered. It was reported that there has been an increase in vandalism and destruction since tea time. All the husbands gathered together and said that the hearing would not continue.

By then I was sure, there could be arson in the court? Could it be vandalism? It was not imagined that there would be any other kind of disaster. It was beyond imagination. Around 3:30 am I was told by the court guards whether my husband should be a little safer now.

He informed that the police did not seem to be able to stop the crowd, the army had not arrived. We were in the courtroom. We were not so aware of the outside environment. After this news from the security personnel and the other judges also said that the situation was getting complicated, we started to discuss. 

The prime minister resigned on 24th of August probably around 1 am. Another Prime Minister was not appointed. The country was without a government. I tried to contact all the security before going to the court. The situation was dire. But I tried to fulfill everything that I took responsibility for and took an oath to the best of my ability. 

At around 3 o'clock, there was a news that the security personnel including the Nepal Police, who were assigned for security, were back. Now, if they leave the uniform, the rumor also started. It was also reported that the protestors had taken weapons from some places along with the uniforms. 

We had to be more careful when things like this happened because it is a matter of court. A court is a place where people's property resides. Court is an institution made for the livelihood of citizens. Even then, I had no idea that they would burn the courthouse and missile files. We were getting information that the mob had vandalized the parliament building and reached Maitighar via Singhdabar and proceeded towards the Supreme Court.  A previously uncharacteristic comment that the

court was on the cards was suspect. But the country was in a state of dereliction of duty at that time. I was doing my duty. There were rumors that the Nepalese police had abandoned security. I didn't give up even then.

I think I did as much as I could under the circumstances. I also contacted and requested various places for security arrangements. I did it many times. But when I got the information that the Nepal Police was also backed, it made me more sensitive and serious. And my security personnel also requested that my husband should not stay here anymore from the point of view of security, he should leave. With a heavy heart, I prepared to walk with the security personnel. I have tried to protect my good faith and sanctity decision institutionally and court. 

Around 5:30 am I know what happened, Parliament building, the representative body of the people, was set on fire. I got the information that Singhdbar, which carries the heritage of history, is also the target of attack. With this, there was concern about what happened in the Supreme Court. In the middle of my worries, I heard that the Supreme Court was also burnt. 

It hurt me a lot to hear this. From where I was, I contacted the heads of all the security agencies. I got information about the situation of the court. 

Gen-G came to the streets against corruption and misrule. Their demands were ignored and suppressed by the government. So these events happened. Don't you think that the state could not address it sensitively? 

It's not very polite for me to answer this because politics dictates such things. It is better if I do not enter into political matters. There will be an investigation on this matter tomorrow. There will be an investigation. Then everything will be considered. The only thing I understand is that there is an independent court in this country. We have accepted an independent judiciary.

We also have a constitution that we have adopted. Therefore, whenever a leadership should be devoted to judicial integrity, judicial sanctity and judicial independence, I feel that I have truly stepped into that role. I have to speak when it comes to court matters, but if there are any references to politics, I will not be able to convince you. This is also my obligation. 

On that day, not only the courts, especially the Supreme Court, but all levels of courts from the district were attacked. Missiles fired. Was it done by the same group or by different groups? 

Today there is a situation that has not been investigated and investigated. We have no say in this. But you can feel that there is some political motivation or some judicial motivation in the attack on the court, even in terms of the work that is done in the court. All of these things tie into the decisions we make. The decision we made last year has never been made in the history of Nepal.

When we decide in such a number, it is not possible to satisfy all the losers, and as many prisoners as there are who have gone to prison, all of them have reached our decisions and judgments. How many cases are pending? Some of them have been sent to prison by the district verdict and some have been sent to prison by the higher verdict. A person who has to spend life in prison may not be happy with the court's decision.

but that is also synonymous with being a court target. Apart from that, we who work in the court are also human beings. Was there a mistake on our side or did it happen at the bottom? After all these incidents, I do not make an opinion connected with those incidents, but a review is necessary to see if there was any role in it. When a case related to social media came up, it was initially dismissed by the court. But the same court also ordered to cancel the bench and register it.

Not all judges do such things, but also the administration. All this is not known to me or any judge. When do Supreme Court judges start their work, when cases come to their bench from Gola. The bench starts hearing at 11 o'clock and only the judges come to know that this case has come to them. When it seems that the social media case before the court and the verdict in the case related to social media is not clear and everything is not communicated.

In the matter of straight talk, we explained in detail about social media. It seems that there was something else going on in that case or it was not communicated in the same way. In that case, we only said that social networks should be regulated by making laws. We did not ask the court to stop social media. It was not and is not said anywhere. But if the 'impression' went out, the court ordered to stop the social media. It wasn't at all. 

Do you mean to say that if the government had correctly interpreted the social media decision made by the Supreme Court and brought it to the public, the situation of the movement since August 23 would not have happened and such an attack on the court would not have happened? 

In the matter of straight talk about social media, we say regulate, make laws for regulation. But that social media did not apply to those who were imprisoned and imprisoned. On the one hand, the generation movement of Gen-Ji on 23rd and 24th August, but together with many other things, especially arson, looting and damage to many properties of the state.

Jen-ji started the movement with a holy purpose, demanding good governance against corruption. But the arson that took place under the cover of the movement caused a huge loss to the courts of the country including the Supreme Court. Millions of missiles of the court were damaged due to this kind of vandalism. 

On the other hand, other properties of the state were attacked at Singha Durbar. There was an attack from the Prime Minister's residence to the President's residence. Personal properties were also attacked. At the same time, the court was also attacked. The subject of the attack on the court is quite different.

because the citizens' symbols of justice, trust and hope of justice were also attacked. We did not say that freedom of expression, a sovereign fundamental right, should not be allowed to be 'enjoyed' on social media. We mean to make laws with good faith and positive thinking and to regulate according to laws. This is a worldwide practice.

As much damage has been done in the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts, according to the data received so far, how many cases and what cases have been burned? 

There are only 24,000 cases in the Supreme Court. How many were burned. How many were destroyed. How many are torn. How much we have collected and stored in a room. All the staff in the court, including myself, have been engaged in this since August 25. We have come and worked here even on holidays and Constitution Day. I myself have raised the morale of the staff by being present.

This is what we have been doing for 13 days. Currently, the work is being done to separate the ones that are old and usable, and how many are not. Dasain has passed for all the employees. Even though it's Dasain, they are still working. This work is also done during Dasain. 

Has the court administration studied that trend? What areas were most attacked? What files are burned? Is there any situation that can be analyzed? 

It is not clear which missile is there and which one is not. After discovering this situation of missiles first, we can talk about Parton. First of all, what kind of missiles do we have? What types of missiles have been destroyed? You can tell by looking at it all. Now I can only say that the court has been attacked.

What is the overall court damage situation?

There were missiles from the Rana period in Kathmandu district. It is all ash. There were 500,000 missiles. All pre-2030 missiles have been phased out. All records dating back 90 years have been destroyed. It is a court with 26 thousand cases. All these issues are being resolved. Across the country, 15 district courts and 8 high courts have been damaged.

What do you think is the reason for stealing the hard disk of the computer?

It can be many things. As seen from later research. There may be a 'vested interest' in it. There may be some harm, there may be a desire to delete the data. 'Ultimate' is to destroy data. It is highly desirable that I speak only after investigation. Again the truth wins. of justice.

Not only the courts, but also the legislature and the executive were attacked. There was a systematic attack on these three bodies. Do you think it was intended to destroy our system or not?

It is not advisable for me to talk too much about governance and politics. What I personally think is different. I cannot speak about the executive. I can't even talk about the legislature. The institution to which I have sworn.

I can only talk about the judiciary based on what the constitution says. But in the course of time what we believe will be investigated one day. The conclusion will come. And based on that conclusion, we can say that things are like this. Today I will say one thing, from tomorrow something else may appear. What the person in charge of the country should say should be in the right place. It has more impact. Can also be reproductive. The court itself is a judicial institution. The court is also the victim of this incident.

What is the Supreme doing now?

Collecting the missiles inside the court, collecting the data and other work we are doing. Even on Sunday, I held a full court meeting and made some decisions about it. We have resolved the matter of setting up non-existent missiles. Today we have discussed in detail how to create a missile. We are engaged in making directory. 

Now we have priority until we have to build the missile. The safety of all staff and judges is a priority. There is no place for judges and staff to sit. There is no place to run a bench. Tables, chairs and thousands of thousands of us need computers and printers. It will have to be fixed. A court cannot function without all these materials.

There are minimum requirements to run a court. The first priority is to do it. Everything in the courthouse has been destroyed. It is not possible to say what needs to be said from the research. Now we are focused on how to initiate justice. We are now asking for discussion and support from everyone including the bar, government lawyers for missile manufacturing. My work is very focused on the need to provide justice to the people quickly. 

Whatever happened on August 24, its background was very long. Panchayat, democracy and even in the republic of 2062/063, there may be dissatisfaction or displeasure after leaders of the same face came to power. Is it the case that the court should be introspected to see if it had made a mistake or not?

There is no such thing as not reviewing in such a sensitive situation. I have decided not to stop the issue of detention as the first step to exercise civil rights by holding a full court (full meeting) from the day after the incident took place. You mentioned the review. I say, we need a ruthless review. But what was our limit, what we could do, where we went wrong in these matters or if there was no mistake, how much we were attacked under the cover of the mistake, that should also be reviewed. This is the review. We're into it. 

What is the angle of this review?

Now the first thing should be the court proceedings. We're into it. Then we will review where we went wrong. We, the people who carry the agenda of judicial restructuring, cannot back down from this. I am at the point of not compromising the two things now. One, judicial restructuring. I won't compromise with anyone when it comes to this. There must be judicial restructuring. I have been doing this for three to four years. It should be done even if it takes three to four years. I will try my best.

Second, you're seeing these gola customs, it didn't come out of nowhere. In the past, bench setting, case setting, pace setting has come to this cycle. This is due to judicial restructuring. This 'reform' has come about because of the desire and initiative of all of us. I want the court to be transparent. I want all activities of my organization to be open. Judges are transparent and cases are heard fairly and justice is served. Everything must be transparent and responsive. We must be able to deliver on this.

Citizens often accuse the court of protecting political figures and people accused of corruption. Citizens have the right to be restructured now or not?

You have the right to sit in that place and say so. In my place, what I say and do should be reviewed if I am accused like this. I am not saying that there must have been a mistake somewhere. But as I am in the leadership in terms of saving the shame of the judiciary and saving the identity of the court, my bottom line is to create a transparent and clean court. I am ready to do whatever it takes to save the shame of the court. But the Chief Justice doesn't just want to. You might think, whatever

the Chief Justice wants will happen. You must be free from it. The Chief Justice cannot tell the judge that you should do this. An independent court will not exist the day it starts saying that. Whether there are three, five or seven judges, everyone on the bench is free to give their opinion.

Jen-G's movement is complete. But what reforms are needed in our system to 'settlement' now? The Constitutional Council and the Judicial Council itself are an example of how the fabric of politics and the judiciary have been connected. The Chief Justice is elected by the Prime Minister, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Speaker of the National Assembly and the leader of the opposition parties in the Constitutional Council. The same is the case with the judicial council that elects judges. And how can the court remain untouched by politics?

Constitution has a constitutional council. We can even interpret the Constitution. We cannot amend the constitution. We cannot even abolish the constitution. We cannot even misinterpret the constitution. There is a right to be restrained and make up to one interpretation. The issue of keeping five political people in the Constitutional Council belongs to the Parliament and MPs rather than us.

The question of what kind of constitution you made does not come to me. Rather than the provisions of the constitution, it should be interpreted in such a way that the essence and spirit of it is not dull. Sometimes, in connection with some issue, we draw the attention of various agencies of the state. Sometimes we say by issuing directive orders, sometimes by sending instructions and sometimes by issuing mandates. Like, in the dotcom case, we nine judges sitting on the bench told you to make laws and regulate social media. We do not make the law ourselves. The constitution is not made by us. If there was a mistake in the constitution, we cannot enter.

When the constitution is used wrongly or when the state does not exercise discretion, it is reasonable to expect the courts to intervene, right?

This is your request. If I enter it, it leads to others. You raised the question of what a judge should do at such a time if a person standing on the street asked him. My answer to that is that a decision can be given only after coming to the court as an interested party.

If it comes to why the case within the judiciary was delayed, why the decision could not be made, I can answer, but people cannot express their anger to the court as to why the legislature made a law that should be made on time. The youth have a feeling of good governance and no corruption, the executive should work on that. This too cannot be imposed on us.

Gen-Gs don't seem to be in high demand. There should be good governance in the country and there should be no corruption. It was not a failure in any way. We should take this as a message to the judiciary as well. If in the past we thought we had done well, now that thought must be ruthless. There should be no corruption. Judicial governance also resonates with me.

I don't want to go into the executive authority and the reins of governance even when it comes to governance. But if we have to be honest about judicial governance, then we have to be honest. We should also be aware that decisions should be made in time, decisions should be implemented in time, and people's fundamental rights and rights should not be delayed for a long time. Today's movement has brought two things to my mind. As much work as we did. As much as our judge did, perhaps it was less or not enough. It has been realized that it could not be done in a much better way. It has made me more responsible.

You are right about the constitution here – the courts interpret the constitution. Explaining what is there now, whether there is a constitution in the country today or not? Because our constitution says that the appointment of the Prime Minister will be done only under Article 76. That article has not been used in the formation of the current government. However, if it means that there is no constitution, all structures including the president are under this constitution. 

I can't answer that. This dispute may come to court. When the court comes, we have to speak from the bench. Wherever there is current affairs in the country, constitutional questions inevitably come up. It is not advisable for me to speak today on the subject under consideration. Another thing I will tell you is the constitution. If there was no, this court would have been dissolved. It didn't happen. Even today, the court is hearing the case of direct detention.

If the constitution did not exist, if it was incomplete, there would be no court in it. Our salary was not fixed. How is this possible? Of course not. The same is true of the President. There are some things that cannot be commented on now as our court or constitutional bench will have to speak tomorrow.

The crisis that came after 24 August. The President consulted with various parties. He also consulted political parties and agitating parties. Did you consult the Chief Justice or not? Not a

, not like that. The President as a people's representative institution which is the center of power. There are political parties. You must have consulted all of them. Nothing happened to me. Even if it is sound, the Chief Justice will not speak. We have reversed the dissolution done by the President in the past. You might think you asked in such a crisis. I don't know what advice the President took. I shouldn't even care or talk about what happened in the news. I cannot even enter into the consultation of the President.

Did the word 'jukti' appear in the statement issued by the President's office?

The President is the guardian of the Constitution. He said in his statement that he did this to protect the constitution. If the constitution is saved and whatever is done during the agitation, you should have done that. It is not appropriate for me to comment on Rajkaz. The president must have thought that the constitution should be preserved.

We are about to rise again. Now how to raise the court?

If we have to improve, we have to improve. It is about corruption and good governance that Gen-J is demanding. What will be tomorrow's governance will be tomorrow. My part is to take responsibility for judicial governance. I must be ruthless in judicial deviation or corruption. I walk in the belief that the court will rise from the ashes and walk again. I have said many times, I will take charge of the court.