The constitution is the supreme law of the country, an independent and effective judiciary system, which is extremely important to maintain and ensure the integrity of democratic governance. Such sentiments are often heard. However, in practice, there are many who understand that the court is an extension of the interests of the executive. Some even interpret it as a spokesperson for the permanent power rather than the interests of the chief executive. It is said that the permanent power pushes the court forward to create a situation favorable to itself! The suffering of those seeking justice is very old.

How will the court, scorched by the lightning of Bhadaure, move forward? Politics is not ready to be corrected. The sacred place of people's sovereignty, the House of Representatives, has been abruptly dissolved. The government led by Sushila Karki, which suddenly came into existence, is itself surrounded by a storm of questions. The security apparatus is in a state of panic.

Questions are being raised so much that there is a commotion. The tendency to seek justice on the streets has been aroused. The idea of ​​using force against those who hold different opinions or work is deepening. In such difficult times, can the democratic process of judicial courage return to the limelight, can the trampled methods and values ​​​​re-emerge? Is the court serious about the task that has fallen upon it in the changed situation? The present has expected from the court, and history will evaluate it.

'The fate of the judiciary as an institution and our fate as a democratic country, depends on whether we, as individuals, speak up or remain silent,' the judges of the Supreme Court must surely be thinking. The power of the court is its reputation and dignity. The erosion of the credibility of the court, which in the past relied on the permanent establishment to become a tool of power, was not surprising, although it was risky. Although it may seem normal at first glance, it is the duty of judges to protect the image of the court. The crisis of credibility has deepened even for the court. In any vibrant court, there are only a few judges who have the courage to say, "This is not right" despite physical risks, mental doubts and social pressure based on foresight, foresight and foresight, who have the courage to provide guidance in times of crisis. 

If dialogue does not help in questioning oneself, what is the point of it? It is necessary for the court itself to look at its face in the mirror of society, and at the same time, it is inevitable to communicate with itself. And the court sometimes accepts the audacity of trying to awaken the self-forgotten 'society-politics' with the tip of the pen and, when it does not want to change politics, to plunge the tip of the pen into the body of politics. Immediate motivating factors rather blunt the awareness of the court, do not help to increase it. When those who make decisions after calculating the profit and loss are in trouble, they either change their colors or join the party.

In neighboring India, the then elected Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency on June 26, 1975, which lasted for twenty-nine months. Emergency is known as the black mark of Indian democracy. At that time, there was executive dominance in every organ of the state, there was a strict attempt at control, and it was a season of arbitrary power. However, some judges were seen as drawing the line of law and values ​​over unbridled tendencies.

In an editorial in 1976, the New York Times predicted that – if democracy ever returns to India, someone or the other will definitely build a memorial for Supreme Court Justice H. R. Khanna.’ The editorial referred to a controversial Supreme Court judgment in which people detained under the Internal Security Act, 1971, had sought relief from illegal detention. Among the five judges on the bench, Khanna held a different view. Khanna’s bold decisions and their consequences became famous. He was outshone in the race to become the Chief Justice and eventually had to resign. 

Justice Khanna believed that it was impossible to understand or resolve legal disputes without understanding the larger objectives of the society in which he was a part. Law students put it simply – the Constitution is not used to create an anarchic society because the whole purpose of the constitutional enterprise is to prevent anarchy and establish legitimate authority. Justice Khanna had said at a dinner organised to mark his retirement, ‘The court must earn respect by standing firm on the test of truth.’

The most serious threat to the court is not its own power, but its collusion with those powers, which it is responsible for protecting. The power of the court depends on its ability to create public trust. Therefore, judges must be self-aware. How do judges exercise their inherent power? Do they have any ambitions for government in retirement? These things also increase the credibility of the institution.

During the twenty-one months of the Emergency in India, more than one lakh people, including top opposition leaders, were detained without trial. During that dark time, a lone judge paid a heavy price for protecting the rights of Indian citizens and stood up to the executive, leaving an indelible mark on judicial history. Justice Hansraj Khanna (H.R. Khanna) was the one who lost the chance to become the Chief Justice of India. However, by recording his dissent, he became a shining chapter for legal scholars. In fact, this is a lesson that is as memorable in our time as it was in the Indian context during Justice Khanna's time.

This is a formula for understanding the terrible legacy of judicial independence in any democratic system. Where there is fear, there cannot be justice. The Constitution is not just a piece of paper. The concept of federalism is not a fad. The President has punished the Madhesh Province Chief who took the oath in a hotel.

The Supreme Court has reined in the Chief Minister who took the oath in a hotel. The Supreme Court's interim order to prevent the newly appointed Chief Minister of Madhesh Province, UML leader Saroj Kumar Yadav, and the Council of Ministers formed on his recommendation from making any policy decisions that will have a long-term impact is a historic order.

Kathmandu's power struggle is making many experiments in Madhesh. Madhesh is being established as a national laboratory. The UML has staged the 'oath game' in Madhesh to manage the disillusionment spread among its own cadres. No matter how much it shakes, a state is not a structure that will collapse. Federalism is a tool for broad interests, diversity management, and decentralized power exercise. The inability of an incumbent to take care of his positional dignity is his incompetence, not that of this provincial structure.

The way the UML spoke in favor of the political drama staged in the hotel, it makes it clear that it has not yet found the right place to prove itself. He could not assess the anger expressed from the ground. Even after the court order, the UML has not even admitted its weakness in the Madhesh province. Since the Madhesh geography or the federalism that came from the Madhesh struggle is not the property of only the political forces there but has become the common heritage of all Nepalis, it would be appropriate to continue a broad public debate on it.

The ‘sabotage politics’ carried out by the members of the Madhesh Provincial Assembly in Janakpur, which could have reached the point of knocking on the door of the Supreme Court, must be answered for a long time. The rivalry among the members of the Provincial Assembly is slowly turning into a suicidal direction of ‘who will be more aggressive’. The oath game in the hotel has united all the parties against the UML in the Madhesh province.

The way the Nepali Congress showed its distance from the UML and remains steadfast in it in the future, the Congress will point to possible paths from the Madhesh province. The Nepali Congress can find its right political direction after assessing and analyzing the instability that is coming to Madhesh Province. Why did CK Raut topple the government led by his own party, Satish Singh? Why did he immediately join another coalition government? What is the meaning and intention of the desire for autonomy immediately after leaving the government? This must be answered.