On Wednesday, two lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) accused the judiciary of treading an autocratic path and called for its restructuring. 

Lawyer-turned-lawmaker Yagya Mani Neupane said the Constitution and the government have changed, but for people to feel real change, the judiciary needs to be restructured. His remarks came in response to last week’s interim order by the Constitutional Bench to halt the use of two provisions of the House of Representatives regulations that sought to change the way the two-thirds threshold is calculated by allowing votes from both chambers to be combined. Another RSP lawmaker, Madhu Kumar Chaulagain, went a step further, claiming that the judiciary, which is expected to deliver justice to the people, has moved towards authoritarianism. 

These were not one-off incidents. In May, lawmaker Samikshya Banskota even openly challenged the justices to take off their robes and join politics. It has become a routine act: Every time the apex court rules against a government decision, some RSP leaders criticise the judiciary, openly and vehemently.

Like any other state organ, Nepal’s judiciary is not perfect. Several of its decisions and actions by individual justices have come under criticism. But that in no way means that every decision against the government is weak on legal or constitutional grounds. In fact, several such rulings have been necessary to uphold the Constitution and its spirit. The judiciary, like parliament and the executive, must be open to scrutiny, but criticism of its decisions should be based on legal reasoning rather than political convenience. 

Such criticism in parliament therefore risks intimidating the judiciary and undermining its independence. Political leaders are free to disagree with court rulings and question judicial decisions, but repeatedly attacking the institution whenever it rules against the government is a troubling pattern. The judiciary plays a crucial role under the principle of separation of powers. Its role is even more important when a single party has an absolute majority and parliament does not fully perform its role of holding the executive to account. In such a situation, an independent judiciary becomes an important constitutional check on the exercise of government power.

For the democratic system to thrive, the judiciary must be allowed to function without interference or intimidation. This is even more important now, as the judiciary is still struggling to recover from last year’s attacks. For months, judges performed their constitutional roles in a climate of intimidation.

If the RSP believes the judiciary needs restructuring, that can be done through the legitimate constitutional process. But such a move requires thorough homework, a clear demonstration of its necessity and safeguards to ensure that any reform does not undermine judicial independence. What is unacceptable is publicly attacking the judiciary every time its decisions are unfavourable to the government. RSP leaders should immediately stop such unwarranted interventions. The party leadership, too, should take note of the conduct of its lawmakers and ensure that political disagreement with the judiciary does not turn into pressure or intimidation.