Even the court in the case of constitutional amendment!

They have pointed out the need for constitutional amendment in matters such as the representation of the Chief Justice in the Constitutional Council, the structure of the Judicial Council.

The Nepal Bar Association is raising the demand that the provision of representation of the Chief Justice in the Constitutional Council should be removed from the constitutional amendment. The conclusion of the bar is that due to the representation of the Chief Justice in the council recommending the appointment of the heads and officials of the constitutional bodies, the judiciary is also divided like the parties. Even former judges seem to agree with this demand of the bar.

'Yes, the representation of the Chief Justice should be removed from the Constitutional Council, it increased self-interest,' former Supreme Court judge Balram KC said, 'It was seen that the Chief Justice has taken the stand that his people should be appointed not only in the constitutional bodies but also in the Council of Ministers, this is a distortion and the constitution must be amended to stop it. '

Legal practitioners argue that the representation of the Chief Justice in the Council should be removed because the court will face moral crisis to hear a case in the Constitutional Bench against the appointment made on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. "When there is a case in the constitutional bench against the appointment made through the recommendation made by myself, the situation is that the bench, which also includes the Chief Justice, takes sides, that's why there is a need to amend the constitution," said senior advocate Satishkrishna Kharel. Stating that corruption has started to become public in a shameless manner due to the involvement of the Chief Justice even in the minister's role, he said that it would be appropriate for the Chief Justice not to participate in the Constitutional Council to keep the court clean.

In order to prevent corruption and bribery in the courts, Kharel is of the opinion that a system like the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission should be made in the constitution. "Until there is a constitutional arrangement for investigating and prosecuting cases where judges have taken bribes or corruption, the corruption of the courts will not stop, but will increase," he said. "The Constitution has given the judicial council the responsibility to investigate judicial deviation and bribery, which is practically difficult to implement," he said, "because there is a dilemma whether a chief justice will investigate the case or prosecute the judge for corruption." Therefore, a provision should be placed in the constitution to investigate corruption within the judiciary by setting up a judicial authority abuse investigation commission or a body similar to the current authority. There are comments that there is political interference due to the fact that the judges are in the minority in the judicial council. The judges of the Supreme Court are in favor of amending the constitution to have at least three or more judges in the judicial council.

According to the current constitutional arrangements, the Judicial Council, chaired by the Chief Justice, consists of senior judges of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Law, representatives of the Nepal Bar Association and legal experts appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. "The law minister, the bar representative and the prime minister's representative are from a political background, so they always argue over the issue of share," said a judge of the Supreme Court. It has brought distortion in the court. It would be better to increase the number of judges in the council and remove the representation of the prime minister, as the law minister represents the government. Senior advocate Kharel says, "Bar and lawyers who represent the prime minister are also people of the court, judges should not treat the opposition." Former judge KC also says that the majority of judges should not be formed in the judicial council. If the majority of the judges is reached, no matter how many qualified people are outside the court, they cannot reach the bench. It prohibits good people, that's why the current structure is fine,' he said, 'if the Chief Justice wants, there is no problem in stopping the party division.' There is a constitutional provision to review whether or not the Commission, Inclusion Commission, Tribal Tribes Commission, Madhesi Commission and Tharu Commission will continue after 10 years of the promulgation of the Constitution. Rights activists suspect that these commissions may also be removed in the name of cost reduction when the constitution is amended. "The government has neither given sufficient budget to this commission, nor has the appointment been done in a conflict-free manner," says human rights advocate Raju Chapagain. Moreover, these commissions were not formed as soon as the constitution was promulgated. It has been almost 6 years since the formation of this commission. Can't be reviewed right now.'