SC judges dissatisfied with proposed HoR regulations

June 9, 2006
2 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

Two Supreme Court judges have expressed dissatisfaction over a provision of the House of Representatives (HoR) regulation tabled before the House which stated Chief Justice and other Justices of the SC require taking oath of office once again before a parliament committee.

Speaking at a programme in the capital on Thursday Justice Anup Raj Sharma said honest judges would prefer to step down rather than surrender their conscience before the House. “This is the beginning of another form of anarchy soon after one form anarchy was toppled,” Sharma said.

Saying it as a serious issue on part of an independent judiciary, another Justice Min Bahadur Rajamajhi has been quoted by The Himalayan Times as saying that, “The House wants to bring the judiciary under it forcibly. This is against the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances.”

The judges said declaration is neither a part of the constitution nor an interim statute since the 1990 constitution is still functioning.

Clause 238 of the proposed HoR regulations mentions that the CJ, other Justices of the SC and judges of all courts will have to take the oath before a Special Committee of the House or they will be dismissed.

It has been learnt that Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel had held informal discussions with the apex court judges on the issue on Thursday. The formal meeting is scheduled for Friday to discuss the matter.

President of Nepal Bar Association (NBA), Shambhu Thapa, urged the member of the parliaments not to attack on the independence of the judiciary.

“If the MPs think they know everything, they can take the charges of the judges, but they should not attack the judiciary and the rule of law,” Thapa said. “Stop every action against the morale of the judges,” he said, adding “There is no need for the judges to take the oath of office before the House.”

Newly appointed Attorney General Yagyamurti Banjade claimed the rule of law and the independence of judiciary still exist in the country and the HoR regulations does not attack the judiciary.