The Council aims to exercise the discretion of all organs in the appointment process by representing the executive, judiciary, and legislature. However, recommendations from the Constitutional Council and appointments made on that basis have been controversial in Nepal.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
In a democracy, various institutions are created to maintain coordination and balance between the organs and bodies of the state. Matters ranging from their appointment process to jurisdiction are specified by the constitution and law. The Constitutional Council of Nepal has been conceived and practiced, which recommends the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and officials of various commissions.
The Council aims to use the discretion of all organs in the appointment process by representing the executive, judiciary, and legislature. However, the recommendations made by the Constitutional Council and the appointments made on that basis have been controversial in Nepal. Due to this, the image of all the organs, commissions, and bodies concerned has been tarnished. Therefore, changes are necessary from the structure of the Constitutional Council to the method of selecting the recommended persons to gain credibility.
Since a strong government with almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives has been formed, there is a strong expectation among the citizens that it will set standards. Therefore, there is a need for comprehensive reforms in the appointment process and selection of candidates. Article 284 of the Constitution contains a provision related to the Constitutional Council. The Prime Minister is the chairman. Similarly, the Chief Justice, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Speaker of the National Assembly, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives are members. Its main function is to recommend the appointment of the Chief Justice and the heads and officials of constitutional bodies. Since all three organs of the state are represented, only one person, party, or faction cannot be recommended for important and sensitive positions in the state. The purpose of such a provision is to ensure that competent persons reach the relevant bodies through a multi-faceted evaluation. As expected in theory, if the work is done accordingly, a competent person would be appointed and the practice of 'checks and balances' would be strengthened in the state.
Although it is expected that 'checks and balances' will be maintained in the recommendations made by the Constitutional Council, which represents the three organs, in practice 'divide and rule' has been observed. On the other hand, when the Prime Minister tailors the recommendations made by the Constitutional Council to suit himself through an ordinance, controversial persons have been appointed. This has raised questions about the credibility and efficiency of the relevant organs and commissions. Today, fewer people trust institutions like the CIAA, which should play a meaningful role in controlling corruption. According to a study conducted in collaboration with Kantipur and Sharecast Initiative, 55.4 percent of the participants in the data published in Kantipur Daily on February 15 said that they do not trust the government agency that controls corruption. The main reason for this is the appointment process and character selection.
Organizations that get office bearers through controversial processes, recommendations based on share distribution, and selection of people with weak moral foundations cannot work in the interest of the citizens. In such a situation, the expectations placed on the organization are not fulfilled. Not only internal, but also external impact is not positive. During the time of the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, the appointment of 52 office bearers in Mangsir 2077 and Jestha 2078 by placing provisions in the ordinance that were favorable to him had created a long controversy. The parliamentary hearing process could not be completed. As a result, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions downgraded the Human Rights Commission, which had been in the 'A' category since its establishment, to 'B' for the first time. Such a downgrade linked to the legality of the appointment raised serious questions at the international level about the institutional credibility of the commission. It took the commission five years to achieve its previous 'A' category.
At this time, the office bearers of various commissions, including the Chief Justice, will have to be appointed. The members of the Constitutional Council are not yet complete to make the appointments immediately. In addition, there is a different political-social background created by the Gen-G movement. In addition to the immediate reasons for the Gen-G movement in Bhadau, controversial appointments made based on political influence and access were also reasons. Therefore, there is a challenge to establish standards in the appointments to be made now. Since a strong government with almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives has been formed, there is a strong expectation among the citizens that it will set standards. Therefore, there is a need for comprehensive reforms in the appointment process and character selection.
Constitutional amendment is an option for comprehensive reforms in the appointment process. But there are complications in this. Because no party in the federal parliament has the facility to move forward alone to amend the constitution. This issue needs to be settled through extensive discussions. It may take a long time. Constitutional amendment is an option for comprehensive reforms in the appointment process. But it has complications. Because, no party in the federal parliament has the facility to move forward alone to amend the constitution. This issue needs to be resolved through extensive discussions. It may take a long time. On the other hand, it is not possible to say how the current problem will not be repeated by making changes to the current structure of the Constitutional Council. There may not even be a consensus for that. There is no basis to rely on that the reason for the current problem will not be the same in the future. Therefore, in this context, rather than making constitutional amendment a matter of the present, promising work can be done in the recommendation according to the current legal process. Because the current provisions do not hinder the recommendation of qualified people.
Many of the problems seen now are due to the search for characters who are close to them, responsible to them, and who ensure their interests. Therefore, many improvements can be made through the process that is currently underway according to the constitutional and legal provisions. It is necessary to make the appointment process more transparent and competitive. For that, the method of inviting public applications, preparing clear criteria for eligibility, and making the 'shortlist' public before the recommendation can be adopted.
The time limit made mandatory by the constitution should be followed. Preference can be given to people who do not have a conflict of interest, are experts in the relevant field, and have not been involved in controversies. The office bearers of any body can be recommended and appointed by requesting experts with moral strength so that public justification is confirmed. Balendra Shah has become the Prime Minister from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) party, which has now established itself as a strong party. If the RSS and Balendra want, they can bring many improvements in the appointment process.
