In a democratic system of governance, the judiciary should be established as the most sensitive and trustworthy institution of the state. Since the judiciary is the ‘last refuge of the state’, citizens believe in fair justice. But when the process of appointing judges becomes controversial, not only the qualifications of the individual are questioned, but the ethics, transparency and credibility of the entire system are also affected. In recent years, disputes regarding the appointment of judges have given rise to such serious debates in Nepal. That has raised doubts about the independence of our judiciary.

The lack of public access to the questions of how and why judges were selected, and why others were not selected, has raised doubts among citizens. When questions begin to be raised in a basic process like the appointment of court judges, it is natural for the entire justice system to fall under suspicion. Although the Constitution of Nepal has determined a clear structure and process for the appointment of judges, its implementation in practice has not been satisfactory. The decision-making process of the recommendation-appointment body is often secret, the basis of internal recommendations is not made public, and decisions are made based on consensus or disagreement between a limited number of people, which has also raised questions about transparency. Even though the judges appointed in this way are qualified, the process is unclear, which has raised unnecessary doubts about their qualifications. In a democratic system, just making the right decision is not enough; the process and motives behind the decision are also equally important.

The most serious problem today is the tendency to prioritize political access and relationships over qualifications in the appointment process. A person who becomes a judge should have high morals, deep legal knowledge, and extensive experience. However, in the absence of clear and competitive criteria, qualified people are deprived of opportunities and people with low qualifications but high access are able to come forward. This affects the quality of justice delivery and weakens the credibility of the justice system in the long term.

What is more serious is that the appointment process is not just an initial problem, its impact is long-term. Once appointed, judges remain in office for a long time and their decisions affect society, politics and the economy. If the process is weak at the beginning, its impact is visible for years. Therefore, weaknesses in the appointment process cannot be considered as a simple administrative error, it is a systemic risk.

Bodies such as the Constitutional Council and the Judicial Council, which play a major role in the appointment of judges, are also not immune to criticism. Since the majority of members in these councils are from the government side, decisions are made within a limited political circle, there is a lack of external oversight and the basis for decisions is not made public, raising questions about transparency. Therefore, the lack of transparency in the process of appointing judges in the courts is seriously affecting public trust.

The lack of public access to the answers to the questions of how and why judges were selected and why other people were not selected has raised doubts among citizens. In a democracy, the legitimacy of any institution is determined not only by its legal basis, but also by public acceptance and trust. When the process is difficult to understand, it is also difficult to accept. This is why it is very important to increase transparency in the appointment process.

Similarly, another important aspect of the judicial appointment controversy is the lack of accountability. How to ensure accountability in such a situation? When the decision-making process itself is secret, accountability becomes only a theoretical concept. This raises another important question. Is our judiciary ‘institutionally’ strong or ‘individually’ dependent? If individuals are stronger than the system, the institution becomes weak in the long run.

To strengthen the judiciary, the system must be strong, where rules and procedures are clear, fair and transparent, and remain above the influence of any individual. In the absence of an effective mechanism to evaluate the performance of judges after their appointment, it has become difficult to ensure their accountability.

Independence is the basic foundation of the judiciary, but accountability without independence can weaken the system. If there is no clear monitoring of the performance, conduct and discipline of judges, there is a high possibility of accountability within the system. Superficial improvements are not enough to solve such problems; systemic and structural changes are needed.

Developing clear and measurable criteria for assessing qualifications is another important step. An evaluation system should be developed based on aspects such as legal experience, judgment writing ability, ethical conduct and commitment to public service. First, it is essential to make the judicial appointment process completely transparent. Measures such as open applications from those who want to become judges, public presentation of their qualifications and experience, and clear explanation of the selection criteria can make the process credible. This not only ensures the selection of qualified individuals, but also increases public trust.

Second, it is necessary to effectively implement the parliamentary hearing system. An open assessment of the professional history, ethics and decision-making ability of those who want to become judges makes the process more transparent. This can be done by ensuring the participation of civil society, legal experts and stakeholders.

Such an exercise makes the appointment process not just a formality but a means of real assessment. Third, the structure of appointing bodies also needs to be improved. Diversity and inclusion should be ensured by keeping those bodies free from political influence. Increasing the participation of independent and qualified individuals should bring balance to the decision-making process and make it public, which increases accountability.

Fourth, developing clear and measurable criteria for assessing qualifications is another important step. An assessment system should be developed based on aspects such as legal experience, decision-writing ability, ethical conduct and commitment to public service. This reduces the possibility of arbitrary decisions and helps establish progressive jurisprudence.

Fifth, regular performance evaluations are necessary to ensure the accountability of judges after appointment. Monitoring aspects such as adherence to the code of conduct, quality of decisions, and public grievance management strengthens the system. Such a mechanism is essential to maintain a balance between independence and accountability. The use of technology can also play an important role in the reform process. Online application systems, digital evaluations, and public access to decisions increase transparency. This reduces unnecessary secrecy and arbitrariness in the process.