In Kantipur Conclave-2024, Chief Justice Prakashman Singh Raut said in his opening speech – 'I am not for sale and no one can buy me.' This sentence gives great moral strength. Acknowledges corruption, perversity and inconsistency in the judiciary.

It also vows to control, improve and purify it. Corruption in justice means 'buying and selling of justice', 'denial of justice' and 'if you want to buy a judge, you don't need to hire a lawyer', these sayings are also accepted in America and Britain. It is not that Nepal has not suffered from it from time to time. The impeachment case is an example.

In Latin 'Nulli Vendemus Nulli Negavimus Justicium', in English 'We sell justice to no one: We deny justice to no one'. This is what is written on the seal of the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts, USA. Which can be translated into Nepali - 'We do not sell justice to anyone: We do not deny justice to anyone'. The judiciary of the world is affected by it. The Chief Justice's determination to reform the judiciary by facing the challenges of the judiciary with the determination that 'no one can buy me, nor sell me' is seen. Improvement is achieved if the guts, vision, planning and self are problem-free and the bargaining position is not achieved. The decision of the Chief Justice seems to have all the merits.

Corruption destroys competence, knowledge, skills, goodness, faith, and vision. Corruption creates 'guilt' and 'phobia'. Although the judiciary does not have the same corruption problem as the executive branch, looking at the graph of the development of the judiciary, it is not always seen that there is an upsurge of reform. Sometimes the graph is downward sloping. If we look at the constitutional period, the Supreme Court was not completely independent in the Panchayat. But did not become controversial. People had faith and trust. He could not earn that much during the republic. Sometimes I lost faith. 

The tenure of the Chief Justice is about one and a half years. A mistake was made while making the constitution. In Article 136, when the chief justice was given the task of making the judiciary effective, a period of 3 years should have been fixed, not retirement on the basis of age. Then the purpose of Article 136 would be fulfilled. 

Two events of the Panchayat Supreme Court that should not be forgotten

Bhimnarayan Shrestha was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in 2032 on the charge of throwing a bomb at the king. The bench of the senior most judge was Vasudev Upadhyay. He was a 'highly respected jurist judge'. Also the first judge at war-at-law from Britain. After pronouncing the sentence, he left the court with two hands behind his back as usual. At that time even Supreme Court judges did not have residence, vehicle and security facilities. Walking the streets of Luruluru, the death penalty judge, was in danger of death. At that time, Supreme Court judges did not have the same facilities as today's district judges. But Justice Upadhyay was protected by his integrity. Decisions would be quick, disputes would not arise. The losing side was satisfied with the verdict. The decision was made by the 'Uchchkoti'. Judges lived by an unwritten code of conduct. It was not a custom to decide on the side of the case and to set it aside. Judges were the symbols of justice, blindfolded, holding swords, symbols of the goddess.

There was another justice, Judge Ratna Bahadur Bista. The case of Raja Mahendra's father-in-law came before his court. The king's father-in-law lost. Bista was summoned to the palace by the king. The bereaved family is worried about what will happen after the case of the king's father-in-law is lost. After meeting the king, Justice Bista started giving details about the case. The king said that he did not call because the case was lost. The king thanked him by saying, "You have done justice, that's what the judge should have done" and put ten thousand in a book so that it would not be known. When Bishta went home and flipped through the book, he saw the note. Went back to the palace after taking time. The king said, "There is no need to return it, it was given for doing a good job." Continuation of these two events is necessary today. 

A judge walks home unguarded after giving the death sentence, another judge goes to return the money found in the book. They don't care who is on the side of the case. They mean evidence. Today, the judiciary has felt the lack of Justices Ratna Bahadur Bista and Vasudev Upadhyay. In the newly constructed Supreme Court building, let's honor those two justices by placing a half-sized statue of them. During the Panchayat period, when a case was lost, the king respected the judge. They say they will impeach him if they lose the case in the republic. 

Two events of the Republic-era Supreme Court that should be forgotten

If you want to write about the good and bad things of the Supreme Court, the pen of the newspaper will not do it. It should be written in the book itself. Two years ago there was a presidential election. A former Chief Justice (who later became controversial) also came into the limelight. He was reported to have been offered by a foreign power. Article 132(2) provides that a person who has become a Chief Justice and a judge of the Supreme Court is not considered eligible for appointment to any government post. The reason for keeping this system is the greed for the positions of president, vice president, ambassador, head of state, head of the constitutional commission/body, member of the national assembly, etc. yes Article 132(2) is a provision that guarantees the 'independence of the judiciary in accordance with international standards'. The Supreme Court of India suffers from problems as it does not have this provision. It is alleged that some chief justices became governors and Rajya Sabha members after defeating the government. Bar and lawyer groups in India have been demanding the provisions of our Article 132(2) which prohibits appointment to any post after retirement. But a retired person among us broke the constitution and rushed to the house of leaders and ex-judges for presidential candidacy. The Judges Association violated the Code of Conduct and Article 132(2) by issuing a statement that the former Chief Justice can eat the job of the President. 

The Code of Conduct for Judges, dated 25 November 2002, was a statement contrary to the universally recognized principles of 'Bangalore Principles' of justice. It is a clear code of conduct that a judge should not speak in relation to a dispute that comes before him. During the Panchayat period, the Supreme Court judge used to walk home after passing the death sentence. People had great faith in the Supreme Court. Today, judges are given pajero worth crores, housing facilities, security. Even after retirement, the former chief justice is given a vehicle, allowance, and security. 

Another incident is also noteworthy. It has become public that there is a multi-crore scam in the contract for the building of the Supreme Court. There is corruption in contracts in Nepal. Contracting is an administrative function. The Supreme Court does not have the right to investigate and prosecute cases related to the contract for the construction of court buildings. Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority is authorized. According to the media, the then Permanent Chief Justice Deepak Kumar Karki wanted to send the authority to investigate and investigate the scam, but it was also public that some justices were against it. 

The Supreme Court cannot be an 'island within the island'. If it is not sent to the authorities, corruption will spread. There is impunity. In the case of scams in other government buildings, if the authority investigates and sees a scam, the employees and contractors will be prosecuted, but if it is a Supreme Court building, they cannot even investigate the contractors and the involved employees, what will be the right to good governance and equality? Courts and judges, especially Supreme Court judges, should be exemplary not only in judicial work but also in administrative work. These are events that cannot be forgotten and cannot be repeated.

5 works of reform

There are 25,000 cases in the Supreme Court. ICCPR 966 of the Convention on Human Rights, to which Nepal is a party, is Nepal's law. Article 14(3) (c) states the human right to get speedy justice. The Supreme Court of India, in UN Rao's 1993 and Antul's 1992 cases, combined Article 21 of the Constitution with the fundamental right to speedy justice. If we interpret our own constitution, the same meaning comes. 

Today's Supreme Court has more facilities than the US Supreme Court of the early 19th century. At that time, the White House and the Parliament Building were built in America. But the Supreme Court did not become. Justice had to be done sitting on the ground floor of 'Capitol Hill'. Even so, in 1803 many cases like Marveri's case had already been decided. The lice did not bite the mouth of the eater. The Supreme Court does not have the freedom to justify the delay of the case by saying that there is no facility, no concession. Most of the reforms in the Supreme Court should be called 'cosmetic'. Judges have been given cars worth crores, comfortable government residences, front and back security, salaries and allowances, internet facilities, and newspapers. In return, society and taxpayers have the right to expect speedy and controversy-free justice and a clean image of justice from the Supreme Court. Judges are not allowed to do things that are disrespectful and suspicious of the court. 

1. Correction to appeal

In our system the file (missile) is 2-3 kilos. Hardly 30% of it would be work papers related to evidence and the rest would be administrative papers containing correspondence and case histories. A single issue can take all day if you read everything. Such improvements may be made in the proceedings of the arbitrator. The documents to be taken as evidence in the claim are numbered and cut and it is 'Scheduled in the claim'. The discussion is limited to that. This is the reason why the action in the arbitrator is fast. 

In the hearing of Article 133(3), instead of the story in the appeal, the Supreme Court decided which documents should have been taken as evidence by the lower court, which documents should not have been taken, and which documents should not have been taken as evidence. This improvement is possible by amending the rules. Appellant makes only his case at the hearing. The bench is in the mindset of 'I will give it to you and I will not listen to you twice'. This is the reason for the increase in cases. To be involved in such a case also means suspicion, mistrust and even underestimation of the lower court.

2. Judge appointment

Improvement in judge appointment is very necessary. Former Chief Justice of India JS Burma in his article entitled 'Constitutional Obligation of the Judiciary' (1997, 28 June) on the appointment of Judges said, 'Good, honest, hard-working, hard-working, well-behaved, characterful and studious and has earned a lot of name, wealth from the legal profession and is in the forefront of society. Only known lawyers should be made judges'. This is what it should be. Article 129(5) of the Constitution stipulates that if the career in our country is to be taken from outside the judge, one must have "acquired the reputation of a distinguished jurist by staying in the profession continuously". But it was ignored. Those with law degrees, black coats and bar logos have political party recommendations and influence, while those who have never debated in the Supreme Court have been made judges. People's faith in the judiciary decreased. If judges are appointed after being influenced by JS Burma's article, there will be improvement.

2. Corruption control

The judicial council was made a 'prosumer' in the corruption of judges. According to the law, there is no body to take action on the corruption of judges. It should be understood that everyone is equal before the law, even the judge is under the law. Being appointed to the position of a judge does not mean immunity from corruption. But today there is impunity in the corruption of the judiciary. A strong, independent, impartial and competent commission of inquiry is necessary to investigate and prosecute corruption for judges to succeed in the Chief Justice's resolution that 'judges should neither be bought nor sold'. The Chief Justice should form a committee and draft a bill for such a commission and send it to the government for submission to the Parliament. The government will be forced to turn it into law. 

4. Let's publicize the name of the one who gave pressure. The pressure leader is also public. But such a person and such scandal are not made public. digested, tolerated. That is the weakness. Indira Gandhi won the 1975 parliamentary elections in India. The election was annulled by the Allahabad High Court when Raj Narayan sued. Indira Gandhi sought an interim order not to implement the verdict. A senior Congress minister sought time to meet the judge. It was Justice VK Krishna Iyer. did not meet There was no interim order. This incident, which was done to influence the court's decision, was also made public and written in the decision. This incident has been written by India's famous Justice Iyer in his book 'Before the Emergency and After'. Also the Justice in a separate opinion has referred to State of Rajasthan judgment in AIR 1977. 

Let's support the bold decision of the Chief Justice in the judiciary and make a decision from the full court to make the names of those who bribe, influence, instigate to commit corruption, and prosecute contempt cases in the judiciary. The decision of the Chief Justice is gradually fulfilled.

5. Not too liberal in order to show cause

Article 133(2) is the writ provision. There are certain recognitions of writs. If there is no other remedy, if the decision is contrary to the principles of natural justice, if the decision is made because of lack of authority, if the decision maker is arbitrary, the writ attracts. But the writ has been misused in such a way that a writ is also filed against the payment sought in the case. There are cases where not only the show cause order has been issued but also the interim order has been issued. Although there is an effective appeal system in partial cases, the number of writs has increased to 25,000 cases. There are many things that need to be improved in the courts. Suggested topics can be a starting point for improvement. The Chief Justice himself is experienced and competent. The author hopes that there will be improvements.