Recently, Nepali media published news of a political nature and the intention to entangle the issue of appointment for years. Such news sends a message that the Chief Justice should start reforming now. News should be considered public debate and written discussion notes. Today, faith and trust in the court has decreased. Both the international commitments and the constitution of Nepal have not been followed.

The UN "Basic Principle on the Independence of the Judiciary" states that the independence of the judiciary should be guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 14(1) of the 1966 Convention on Civil and Political Rights states that courts shall be competent, independent, impartial and impartial, and Article 14(3)(c) states that "trials shall be conducted without undue delay". 

The preamble and Article 51(t)(1) of the Constitution state the state's policy of making the administration of justice "quick, efficient, accessible, economical, fair, effective and accountable". Article 136 states that the Chief Justice is responsible for "making the administration effective" means that he is responsible for implementing Article 51(t)(1). When the Chief Justice takes an oath to 'abide by the Constitution', he also swears that he will faithfully implement Article 51(t)(1). However, Section 51(t)(1) was not invoked by the former Chief Justices.

The problem is not the independence of the judiciary 'institution'. Courts are run by judges. The qualities of independence, competence and impartiality that are said to be in the court are the qualities that should be in the judges. The right to hear the case is exercised by the judge.

The independence, competence and impartiality of the judiciary can be written in the constitution. But the independence, competence and impartiality of judges cannot be written into law or constitution. One should rely and believe in the observance of 'Oath, Conduct, Honesty and Code of Conduct'. The law cannot 'monitor' the conduct and integrity of judges.

judge's impartiality, honesty, judge or die. 3 qualities a judge should have is the blindfolded goddess of justice in Greek mythology 2,000 years ago. Sometimes there is reason to doubt whether the eyes that should be closed have been opened in the hearing of the justice.

There is no doubt and problem in 'judicial independence'. Judicial independence is stronger in Nepal than in America. Among the 3 qualities a judge should have, the question of competence has not been raised. In terms of independence and fairness, it can be suspected that there is a shared culture in the appointment and based on some work. 

The Chief Justice is responsible for the implementation of Article 51(t)(1). If there is no social and economic justice, the rights and freedoms of Article 17(2) (a), (b) and (e) will rise against the government. But Article 51(k) (1) is not challenged as Article 136 confers on the Chief Justice the task of executing 'legal justice'. The Judiciary could not fulfill and comply with international 'obligations'. When there is no economic and social justice, the media writes news and editorials. They harass the government.

People's opposition changes the government. Vandalism and vandalism are forgivable, but due to non-implementation of Article 51(t)(1), the rights of Nepali citizens from Article 18 to Article 44 of the Constitution are being violated. Bars, citizens and media are restrained. The subject of news and editorials is not made. The bar, the people and the media are unanimous in not making the court more controversial because the people's confidence in the two organs of the state is low if the public's confidence in the court is also reduced. 

The Chief Justice should consider the news as an 'eye opener' and encourage the media to publicize the weaknesses of the court. Criticism may be unbearable and undigested at first, but it can be the seed of improvement. British Justice "Lord Denning" in the case of R vs. Metropolitan Police Commissioner said, "If anyone speaks or criticizes against us, against our decisions and against our work, we will never and will not use the right to punish to protect our dignity. We call it MP 

We believe that those who criticize, like those who speak in Parliament, exercise their right to freedom of speech and publication. We are not afraid of criticism, nor do we take revenge. Even if the abuser says our decision is wrong or barbaric, we will not go after him. This is 'judicial self-restraint'. The decision is famous in the world today.

The famous former Chief Justice of India JS Burma said in the 'Ghia Memorial Lecture' on June 28, 1997, "Judges keep others within the circle of the constitution, but that does not mean that they are free to go outside the constitution and do their own thing." He said that he should remain within the circle of the constitution. A judge should be able to earn respect through work. I don't want others to respect me. Due to weakness and laziness, the suffering, the trouble, the difficulty, the suffering of the client, when taking the date, hardly comes out. It is the media's religion to publicize such things. Without coming out, there is no improvement in the court and there is delay.

This type of news should be considered as the right to be informed under Article 27 of the Nepalese people. The Supreme Court should encourage media editorials including Bar and other 'stakeholders' of justice to bring out the problem. It then warns the judges against becoming arbitrary. The judgment and work of the court should not be 'scandalised'. Orders must be obeyed. Failure to do so will reduce faith and trust in the court.

Apart from that, it is the right and religion of the media to make news or editorial about the shortcomings, errors, negligence etc. in the court. News is good 'feedback' for improvement. There is a share in the appointment. The writ to be explained has been pending or pending for a long time. The date of the decision has been postponed again and again. The writ of partition is pending.

By agreeing with the bar to send it to the constitutional bench and then sending it to the joint bench, the problem has caused itself. Harikrishna Karki's report also shows this. It can be seen from the report formed by the court that there has been controversy in some cases. Such things are not mentioned in the annual report of the Supreme Court. 

The respect of 'Vishwanath Upadhyay Court' was decreasing. After 072 years, it dropped to zero. Courts have lost the faith of the people. Today Nepalese people remember 'Vishwanath Court'. This is the Supreme Court, when Upadhyay was the Chief Justice. The monarchy had just changed from absolute to constitutional. Parliamentary system was new.

Parliament was dissolved. The case went to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Upadhyay himself issued a show-cause order and asked for a written reply within 15 days without extending the deadline and not suspending the payment. But today, in the same Supreme Court, very important writs that should be given guidance to the government are not filed.

That is the Supreme Court, today it has become difficult to register a case involving a serious constitutional interpretation involving the government. The bench was back to normal. As a result, it is difficult for the petitioner to exercise the right of Article 46. 

Vishwanath Upadhyay should be remembered because the then application for the appointment of the constitutional body can be taken. How and why this application is delayed should make a good subject for 'case studies'. From the point of view of interpretation, the dissolution of parliament of the 047 constitution was more complicated than that writ. But it took almost 1 year for the writ to show cause order.

A writ was received stating that Cholendrashamsher Rana should be looked after even if there is a conflict of interest. Postponed several times. But even till today, the writ is pending. The writ petition should be decided without delay, like a disease that needs to be treated in the emergency room first and then transferred to the ICU. That writ is like dying in an emergency. A situation should not be created where nothing needs to be done because the justification has ended. 

is a request for an opportunity to provide more guidance through so-called explanation. From the written writ, there was a writ explaining the ordinance, constitution of constitutional council, purpose, quorum, number and qualification of commissioners, purpose of formation of commission, parish principal, importance and purpose of parliamentary hearing etc. Supreme Court of India Kesavananda Bharti, Judges Cases-3 is a model of interpretation and judicial activism. The height of the Supreme Court could have been raised much higher by explaining the pending writ as well. 

Constitution is not complete but is complete through amendments and interpretations. The opportunity to explain does not always come. Interpretation is seen as an opportunity, not a challenge. A constitutional bench should be treated as a 'necessary' and an opportunity for interpretation, not a 'place'. If the government is honest and does not violate the constitution, the Supreme Court will not get an opportunity to interpret the constitution.

Article 133(2) of the PIL gives the judges of the Constitution Bench a 'paradise to interpret the Constitution'. But the Supreme Court's mandate was needed to form a constitutional bench. Instead of forming the Constitutional Court, the Constituent Assembly opposed it. The second name of Supreme Court is 'Constitutional Court'. These two reasons are sometimes not ready and able to explain the constitution? The question arises.  Correction of

problem

correction no. 1: Let's be liberal and encourage the media to show the shortcomings of the court through editorials and news. 

correction no. 2: The main reason why the Judiciary has become controversial and people's faith and trust has decreased is the appointment of judges as part of the bond. The tradition of Bhagbanda became the identity of Nepal. This rite was introduced by the judicial council. The former Chief Justice's report also accepted the same thing. The 'stakeholders' of justice are the bar, the media and the public. Courts run on the trust of society and people. Let's add a code of conduct for judges to restore the lost trust. The news that 'the face of the party is visible' in the judges should be made an opportunity and a main mantra for reform. 

media has repeatedly printed which judge belonged to which political party with Aadhaar. The code of conduct of judges had to be improved. Before the appointment of a judge, a judge who worked for a political party close to the party should be recused in the important decision of the government of the same party. 

correction no. 3: Access to justice is an important right of citizens. Article 46 is an important right to enforce fundamental rights and access to justice through PIL to maintain good governance, enforce minority rights, enforce human rights and prevent government excesses. Apart from the provision of other remedies, purely political questions and 'judicially discoverable manageable standard' i.e., the Supreme Court should never act to control and invalidate the rights of Article 46, but in recent cases, it has been seen that the rights of Article 46 have been denied. .

In the case of access to justice under Article 46, we have blocked access to justice by creating difficulty in registering writs from time to time and are losing the opportunity to interpret the constitution. During the Panchayat period, filing of writs in the Supreme Court was not denied, registration was easy. But today in republic Nepal, there is a difficult situation when registering a writ in the independent judiciary.