An informal meeting of UML parliamentarians on Sunday agreed in principle to take up the issue. UML lawmaker Rabindra Adhikari, who is a member of the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee (PHSC), said they had taken note of public comments regarding the nominees and that the names would be vetted if the outcry is genuine.

However, as per the existing provision, proposed names are endorsed even if only

one member of the PHSC supports them.

In the informal meeting, leaders reached an understanding to register a note of dissent if the PHSC approves the names by ignoring their concern.

On April 23, Judicial Council (JC), the constitutional body responsible for recommending justices, made eight nominations for the apex court. Among those recommended are Baidya Nath Upadhyay, Gopal Parajuli, Deepak Raj Joshi, Govinda Upadhyay, Om Prakash Mishra, Devendra Gopal Shrestha, Cholendra Shumsher Rana and Jagadish Sharma Poudel.

Knowledgeable sources at the JC said complaints have been lodged against almost all the nominees. The charges include favouring a particular side in the litigation in justice delivery.

Allegations are that Rana was involved in financial irregularities while deciding cases. Mishra, according to sources, has failed to maintain consistency in verdicts on corruption cases while at the Special Court.

The Supreme Court in 2012 had sought judicial action against Rana for giving clean chit from the Special Court to then-Nepali Congress leader Jaya Prakash Prasad Gupta on corruption charges in 2007.

JC member and senior justice Ram Kumar Shah wrote a note of dissent on recommending Deepak Raj Joshi and Govinda Upadhyay as apex court justices in the April 23 decision.

He noted that both were not qualified to hold the coveted positions. But Shah, along with four other council

members Chief Justice Damodar Sharma, Law Minister Narahari Acharya, Upendra Keshari Nepaune and Khem Narayan Dhungana, did not object to Rana’s nomination.

The move from second the largest party in Parliament could further question the

JC decision. If the UML

sticks to its decision, justice appointments may be politicised, amid voices that the nominations are politically motivated.

Bar critical of recommendations

The Advisory Committee of Nepal Bar Association is critical of the Judicial Council’s decision to recommend names for apex court justices.

Speakers at a meeting suggested recalling JC representatives Upendra Kesari Neupane and Khem Narayan Dhungana. Senior Advocate Agni Kharel said they had failed to select right candidates. “It made no sense to drop Ek Raj Acharya, but to recommend his juniors for the post,” said Kharel. Acharya, expressing dissatisfaction over his omission, has resigned as the chief judge of Jumla Appellate Court.

Similar voices were heard in the executive committee of the NBA that followed. “Some members want clarification from two JC members from lawyers’ community. Others say since the recommendations have already been made efforts should be made to intervene in Parliament,” said an official. The NBA is scheduled to take a decision on Monday.