Exactly a month after an impeachment motion was registered against Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, it was tabled in the House of Representatives on March 13. Two days later, the House was prorogued on March 15. Thereafter, no one talked about it—out of sight, out of mind.

But now a new session of the lower house has been called for Tuesday.

Though this session is about presenting the government’s policies and programmes and the national budget for the fiscal year 2022-23, questions are now being asked whether the House would take up the motion to impeach Rana and conclude it.

Rana has remained suspended since February 13, the day 98 lawmakers from the ruling parties—Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist Centre) and CPN (Unified Socialist)—registered the impeachment motion.

Balaram KC, a former Supreme Court justice and a fierce critic of Rana’s way of leading the judiciary, says going by parties’ actions, it looks like the chief justice will retire honourably with full post-retirement benefits.

“He is just an accused,” KC told the Post. “Parties do not seem to be in a mood to take the motion to a logical conclusion.”

Rana has been one of the most controversial figures in the history of Nepal’s judiciary, with almost all Supreme Court justices in October rising against him. They refused to share benches with him, demanding that he implement reform measures recommended by a report by Justice Hari Krishna Karki.

Lawyers then joined in, organising protests in front of the Supreme Court for weeks. They alleged that Rana was corrupt and the source of all ills in the judiciary.

Despite calls for impeaching Rana, parties continued to drag their feet.

But the three ruling parties’ sudden move against Rana on February 13 left many not only surprised but also suspicious, given the timing. The ruling coalition partners at that time were squabbling over whether or not to ratify the Millennium Challenge Corporation Nepal Compact, with the Maoists and the Unified Socialist taking a public posture opposing the American grant.

The lawmakers who filed the motion have levelled as many as 21 charges against Rana, including his involvement in corruption.

While registration of an impeachment motion is a constitutional provision, questions were asked if the ruling parties had made the move with a view to removing Rana or just suspending him.

Article 101 (2) of the constitution says one fourth of the members of Parliament can register an impeachment motion against any official holding a constitutional position on the ground of failing to perform their duties effectively or working against the constitution or seriously violating their code of conduct. But it needs a two-thirds majority of the Parliament to endorse such a motion.

Given the current composition of the House, the CPN-UML’s support is a must to endorse the impeachment motion, as the parties that have filed the motion have just 133 votes in total. There are 271 members in the House, and to achieve a two-thirds majority, 181 votes are required to impeach Rana. As soon as the motion to impeach Rana was filed, the UML had objected to it, calling it a “conspiracy.”

The Regulations of the House of Representatives have laid down the impeachment process.

As per Rule 161 (2) of the Regulations, the Speaker can present the motion for discussion in the House seven days from the date of its registration.

An 11-member Impeachment Recommendation Committee was formed as per Article 101 (3) of the constitution on March 6.

Once the discussion is held, it needs to be studied by the Impeachment Recommendation Committee.

The 11-member committee includes Bishnu Poudel, Lalbabu Pandit, Shiva Maya Tumbahangphe and Krishna Bhakta Pokhrel from the UML; Min Bishwarkarma and Ram Bahadur Bista from the Nepali Congress; Yashoda Subedi and Rekha Sharma from the Maoist Centre; Ekbal Miya from the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party; Kalyani Kumari Khadka from the CPN (Unified Socialist); and Pramod Sah from the Janata Samajbadi Party.

Radheshyam Adhikari, a former member of the National Assembly representing the Nepali Congress, said it looks like there is a deliberate attempt to delay the impeachment motion against Rana even when it is the constitutional duty of those who file the motion to follow due process and take it to a logical conclusion at the earliest.

“If they deliberately put the motion on hold, it would mean a deviation from the constitutional process,” said Adhikari, who is also a senior advocate. “It’s up to the House whether it endorses the impeachment motion, but it must be presented before the House. Lawmakers don’t have any right to make fun of the country’s judiciary.”

According to Adhikari, the ruling parties that registered the impeachment should hold dialogue with other parties to ensure its endorsement if there are conflicts.

But it’s the main opposition UML whose role will be crucial in the passage of the impeachment motion.

The main opposition has been accusing the ruling parties of having brought the impeachment motion with ill-intention.

Ruling parties, however, pointed at the main opposition, saying its continuous House obstructions caused the delay in moving the motion forward.

Members of the committee formed to study the impeachment motion, however, attribute the delay to a lack of discussions in the committee .

“Everyone is busy with the local polls now, so the parties have no time to think of the impeachment motion. But it must be discussed in the upcoming session,” said Maoist Centre lawmaker Rekha Sharma, a member of the committee.

Another member and Congress lawmaker Min Bishwakarma said he could talk about the impeachment motion only after the local polls are over.

Local elections were held on Friday.

Shiva Maya Tumbahangphe, a UML leader who is also a former deputy Speaker and former minister, said that she still does not believe the ruling parties brought the impeachment motion with the objective of removing Rana.

“If they were honest, they should have sent the motion to the probe panel before the House was prorogued so that the panel could begin its study,” said Tumbahangphe. “Nothing has been done to move ahead the motion except forming the panel which shows that the parties just want to keep the motion in limbo.”

Rana has seven months to complete his term. He was appointed chief justice on January 2, 2019, and he has his term until December 12.

Anup Raj Sharma, a former chief justice, said political parties must take initiatives so as to take the impeachment motion to a logical conclusion, by allowing the probe panel to investigate the charges against Rana.

“The accused either needs to be given a clean chit or convicted after studying the charges against him,” said Sharma. “It looks like the parties want to control the judiciary indirectly.”

According to Sharma, such moves of Nepali political parties would unwarrantedly make Supreme Court justices over-cautious about cases regarding political parties and politicians.

A day after the three ruling parties filed the impeachment motion against Rana, the UML had collected signatures of its lawmakers, raising suspicion if it was planning to make a counter-move.

The UML is not happy with the Constitutional Bench comprising Rana, Deepak Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwar Khatiwada and Ananda Mohan Bhattarai because it had not only overturned KP Sharma Oli’s decision to dissolve the House but also ordered Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba’s appointment as prime minister.

While Dev Gurung, a Maoist Centre leader who had read out the charges, as many as 21, against Rana in the House, said the motion will move forward once the House session begins, UML leader Sher Bahadur Tamang said: “It is unlikely.”

“The parties that brought the motion lack the numbers to endorse it. Our party is not going to support the motion,” Tamang, a UML lawmaker and former minister, told the Post. “It has become apparent that the ruling parties brought the motion with an ulterior motive, with no intention to pass it.”