Constitutional Bench caught in seniority, ‘pick and choose’ dispute
Summary
A dispute over the formation of Nepal’s Constitutional Bench erupted after Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma designated judges by discretion rather than seniority, prompting objections from Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and a halted hearing of 38 cases. The controversy has renewed calls from legal circles and the Nepal Bar Association for a transparent, predictable system such as seniority or lottery-based selection.
Key Points
- Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma named himself and four justices to the five-member Constitutional Bench, but Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal objected and declined to sit.
- The bench did not hear any of the 38 listed cases after the disagreement, reigniting debate over how Constitutional Bench judges should be selected.
- Legal experts and former justices said repeated controversy shows the current system is flawed and needs an institutionally accepted method.
- The Nepal Bar Association wants either automatic seniority-based designation or a lottery system instead of chief justice discretion.
