The election for new leadership of the Nepal Bar Association (NBA), an umbrella organisation of professional lawyers, is scheduled for April 5, 2025. Lawyers loyal to ruling parties—the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)—have forged an electoral alliance. The ruling parties have fielded senior advocate Bijaya Prasad Mishra from the NC as the NBA head. Whereas Kedar Koirala, the general secretary candidate, belongs to the UML.

Raman Shrestha, a former attorney general, is in a fray to counter Mishra. Representing the opposition bloc, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), Shrestha has intensified his election campaign. Lawyers aligned with the Maoists and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) have thrown their weight behind Shrestha. Hoping to secure the votes of lawyers affiliated with the RSP, the fourth largest party established by Rabi Lamichhane, the opposition faction has named Yagya Neupane as the candidate for general secretary of the Shrestha group. Neupane is an aide to Lamichhane, who is facing cases related to cooperative fraud.

Growing mistrust

Political parties have taken the NBA elections as a matter of prestige as the organisation commands more than 20,000 license-holding lawyers. The lawyers affiliated with the association work to maintain professional standards and foster teamwork between the Bench and the Bar. As the legal watchdog and key stakeholder of Nepal’s judiciary system, the association’s role remains vital in resolving legal disputes.

The candidates, heavily influenced by political parties, have vowed to promote human rights by ensuring judicial independence and legal reforms. However, that remains a far cry considering their recent performance.

The general convention is taking place when the conflict between the Bar and the Bench is worsening in the face of a prolonged justice appointment row. Ending the tussle over the formation of the Judicial Council, the judicial body responsible for appointing the justice, the NBA named senior advocate Damodar Khadka as the council member under its quota.

Yet the justice appointment process is reaching nowhere. At least four Supreme Court justice positions are vacant. More than 20 judges of High Courts are retired. Because of the Bar-Bench dispute, the Council hasn’t been able to make any appointments.

The differences between the Bar and the Bench over the justice appointment process surfaced after the Council amended the Judicial Council regulation to place the Supreme Court’s chief registrar at the second rank of the High Court in case he or she is appointed as a High Court judge. This means any Supreme Court chief registrar appointed as the High Court judge will be ranked second after the chief judge.

The association believes the regulation developed by the Council undermines the senior judges working at the High Court. According to Bar leaders, that provision prevents overall career growth and opportunities for judges working at the High Court for a long period. Getting ranked in the second position of the High Court ensures early promotion as chief judge, which eventually provides a chance of becoming a Supreme Court justice. Agitating bar leaders believed the new regulation would demoralise high court judges in the long run.

The judiciary hasn’t listened to the bar association, and the dispute hasn’t been resolved. Instead, it worsened as the Supreme Court administration filed a contempt of court case against NBA head President Gopal Krishana Ghimire for criticising the justice selection process. The fact that his term as head of the association is expiring soon makes Ghimire more insecure. The significance of the NBA has also been questioned. This will likely pose a serious challenge for upcoming NBA leadership. The court contempt case has become like the Sword of Damocles for them.

Now that the NBA’s jamboree is taking place at this critical juncture, all eyes are on the future NBA leadership and its upcoming strategies in resolving the ongoing row. The NBA is clueless about handling future challenges, especially appointing justices that have been vacant for months.

Historically, the NBA has advocated for legislative changes to improve judicial transparency and efficiency. Many appreciated its role in overthrowing the constitutional monarchy and maintaining the rule of law in the country. Its involvement in the Integrated Legal Aid Policy has made legal services more accessible. Economically poor and disadvantaged communities benefited the most, strengthening the credibility of Nepal’s lawful organisation.

The judiciary set a good example of independence by invaliding the Royal Commission for Corruption Control formed by King Gyanendra during his direct rule. Due to its constitutionally guaranteed independence, the judicial move played a vital role in working for the people’s interest in the predicament of the royal takeover when the king had dissolved the elected Parliament. Now, the judicial authority is at a crossroads.

As the tussle between the Bar and Bench worsens, the failure to take decisive moves to resolve the dispute raises questions regarding the NBA’s performance. It should have actively engaged with the judiciary in making judicial appointments, as that would have ensured reforms within the judiciary to prevent political interference and corruption. The association also faces numerous challenges in maintaining neutrality.

All state organs are going out of people’s belief, and the politicisation of institutions is increasing. Some political players are minimising judicial rights to fulfil their vested and petty interests. People are getting disillusioned with the judiciary and its protected system. We all know the clichéd statement “justice delayed is justice denied”.

The NBA has the challenge of establishing people’s trust in the judiciary. It must develop new agendas for improving legal education, ethical conduct and professionalism. It should enhance diversity by eliminating bias. Efforts should be made to encourage lawyers in their profession. How a politically influenced Bar leadership acts independently and upholds the rule of law will be observed.