Rising Conflict Between Two Groups in the Supreme Court
April 11, Kathmandu — Four days after the Constitutional Council broke tradition by recommending Dr. Manoj Sharma, the fourth senior-most judge, as the Chief Justice, the constitutional bench convened on Monday. The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla, included the next two senior judges, Kumar Regmi and Hari Phuyal. Since his recommendation as Chief Justice, Dr. Manoj Sharma has not participated in the bench proceedings and was absent at this session. During the hearing, judges Nahakul Subedi and Til Prasad Shrestha were on leave, while Binod Sharma and Sharanga Subedi were present on the constitutional bench.
The constitutional bench encountered disagreements among judges over two pending petitions. In the first petition, an interim order was issued restraining the removal of trade unions from the civil service. Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan, along with judges Kumar Regmi and Hari Phuyal, issued an order suspending the enforcement of the ordinance that sought to abolish trade unions in the civil service for the time being. However, judges Sharanga Subedi and Binod Sharma dissented, arguing that the interim order was unnecessary.
Similarly, differences surfaced in the second matter concerning legislation passed by the Sudurpashchim Provincial Assembly, which is alleged to conflict with federal law. Three judges issued a short-term interim order, but judges Binod Sharma and Sharanga Subedi expressed divergent views regarding whether the dispute should have been brought before the constitutional bench and criticized the issuance of the interim order without adequate discussion.
According to a Supreme Court judge, recent events have weakened mutual understanding among judges, increasing the likelihood of factionalism. The judge stated, “Since the constitutional bench recommended Dr. Manoj Sharma’s name last Wednesday, judges in the Supreme Court have divided into two groups, and the effects of this division are beginning to manifest in various ways. We were vigilant to ensure that these developments would not impact the judiciary, but given the current trends, it appears difficult to prevent.”