The Supreme Court was established in Nepal on 26th Baisakh in 2009. Judiciary became independent from that day. The foundation of separation of powers was laid. Law Day is also about to be celebrated. That is why the day is celebrated every year.

Celebrating the day is relevant only when the event is remembered and continuous improvement is undertaken. But celebrating Dekhavadi Diwas is a waste of resources, means and time and is also a betrayal to the nation. It is not right for Kanchit to celebrate Law Day by celebrating a holiday and organizing a tea party, but not to reform the judiciary. 

The formation of the Supreme Court is an important day for an independent judiciary. Therefore, instead of Law Day, 'Independent Judiciary Day' would be relevant? Court establishment is independent, competent, impartial and for speedy, quick, accessible justice.

is for appointment of judges as vacancies arise. Not for appointing a judge in Bhagbanda. It is for a judiciary free from distortion, inconsistency and corruption. A strong 'activist' is for the Supreme Court. For the appointment of independent, competent, experienced, honest and loyal judges. Access to justice is for all. 

The reason for establishing the Supreme Court and the British Act of Settlement of 1700 is similar. In Britain, the king, parliament and court had different views on the independence of the courts. Parliament did not dare to enact laws by usurping the king's authority. The king considered himself sovereign. He said that the decision should be made by the court as he said. The Chief Justice was 'Lord Edward Coke'. He said, "The king does not know the law. Knows politics. So the verdict is not what you say. We judges know the law. We do what the law and the evidence says. The controversy is over. The British Parliament made a law to guarantee the independence of the judiciary. 

Today, judges cannot be appointed in time in the courts of Nepal. The judge has the stamp of being appointed by a political party. It is felt that justice has not become effective due to the delay of the case in the constitutional bench, difficulty in registering any writs, problems in order to show cause, difficulty in accessing justice, the situation where writs are dismissed as futile because the purpose has been exhausted, priority is given to the demand for interim orders, etc. When the Supreme Court was established, it was never imagined that these things would become a problem. 

The appointment of judges has become an internal administrative function of the Supreme Court. The right of appointment rests with himself. The qualifications of all three levels of judges are specified in the constitution. The 5-member judicial council that recommends the appointment of judges is under the command of the Chief Justice. It is a constitutional provision that a judge should be appointed within a maximum of one month after a meeting of the council must be held to discuss and the time taken for parliamentary hearings to be cut.

The Chief Justice has the constitutional right to make the administration of justice effective. This right is similar to the right granted by Article 75 to the Prime Minister to run the government, which is a broader right. In a parliamentary system, the decision of the Council of Ministers is paramount. Since the Prime Minister is accountable to the Parliament, his decision is considered to be the decision of the Council of Ministers.

According to the rules made under Article 82(1) such a decision gets legality. A provision like u/s 82(1) is known as 'Omni Bus Curative Clause' in UK and 'Ganga Clause' in India. It is for this reason that the Constitution itself has exempted the rules made under our Article 82(1) from judicial review. 

Considering the provisions of Article 136 and Article 153 of the Constitution as the source of his authority in administrative matters like the authority given to the Prime Minister by Article 75, let's dare to make a rule that the Chief Justice will have a decisive vote and role if there is no unanimity of 5 members in the Judicial Council. 

The Chief Justice is to lead the Judiciary. Since the appointment of a judge is also part of leading, it is necessary to make a regulation that the Chief Justice has a decisive vote on the recommendation of a judge. You have to believe in some authority to implement the constitution. If the Chief Justice is trusted and made the sole responsible, the Bhagbanda rite may end. Because Jas and Apjas have to bear the single responsibility alone, they may not have the courage to bully. The Judiciary has been accused of making a person who is inclined towards the

party as a judge. The Supreme Court of India in a collegium judgment said that 'a party's inclination of a person should not be disputed before appointment. It has been explained that after the appointment, a justice should be appointed who completely forgets his affiliation and inclination towards the party. 

Justices like Laxman Prasad Aryal, Anupraj Sharma, Krishnajung Rayamazhi were not called party-affiliated judges. Even the jury that recommended it was never criticized. Aryal, Rayamazhi, Sharma's bench gave the impression that pure justice will be given. 

climbs pacey over the years today. Lawyers argue. By then, lakhs have been spent on lawyer's fees. How many cases that started as a husband have turned into a fight. Some of the husband's cases have to be taken by the son or wife.

This situation is not the fault of those who come to sue. Government has no role in judicial reform. Within the Judiciary there should be reform from the Chief Justice. If the Supreme Court is to be run as is, Law Day will become a ritual. 

Article 46 of the Constitution is an important fundamental right to access to justice. Article 46 itself enshrines fundamental rights and human rights and interprets the Constitution. Article 133(2) brings the government under the ambit of the Constitution. If the writ petition has a format and any article of fundamental rights and human rights that needs to be explained is mentioned in it, the petition has the right to be registered automatically.

It is the right to simple access to justice. It is stated that if fundamental rights are not respected, other rights may be null and void. The Supreme Court administration should be liberal in registering Article 46 petitions and summoning the bench government. The writ registered in the panchayat period was called to the government by issuing a show cause order the next day.

The Supreme Court of America in the Marwari case of 1803 and the Supreme Court of India in Judges Cases-3 explained that 'Constitution is what the judge says'. The judicial authority of the Supreme Court is not disputed. Ending the writ without calling the government also kills the right to access to justice and encourages people to get away by violating the constitution. Corruption increases.

Apart from political disputes and disputes that cannot be settled by judicial means, if there is a request to explain even one section of the constitution and one section of the law, the government should be called and heard twice. Article 46 is meant for that.

The rule of law is established only if the Supreme Court is sensitive to the application of Article 46. Article 46 and Article 133(2) of the Fundamental Rights Convention and the Convention on Human Rights to which Nepal is a party should be liberal for access to justice. Only then will the 'landmark' judgment come and the Supreme Court will become known to the world.  The

writ petition was filed in time. But as the turn does not come, the purpose of the writ is over. is meaningless in legal parlance. The petition is dismissed. This situation should not be allowed to happen. Even if the writ is filed after delay, it will not be dismissed, even if it is filed on time but is void due to the delay of the court, it will not be dismissed. Arrangements should be made to hear and decide applications that are about to become futile.

Another thing that needs to be improved is the practice of giving priority. The practice of giving priority should be abolished. It is everyone's right to have priority. It is discriminatory to give priority to some and not to others. A demand for an interim injunction is different in priority to the impact it has on the petitioner. A

interim order is an effective remedy. Privileges are no cure. In some writ petitions, priority is proved as 'doctor after death'. Therefore, if there is irreparable damage for the interim order, then let us make an arrangement to grant the interim order, if not, not to grant it. Let's remove the system of priority. 

Finally, the foundation of today's Supreme Court was laid with the establishment of the Chief Justice in 2009. The formation of the said court was to provide quick and easy justice. At that time, the executive was responsible for reforming the judiciary. But Article 136 took away the right to reform the government and gave it to the Chief Justice. Now whatever reforms are needed in the judiciary, the Chief Justice should prepare a plan for it. No matter how many