Amid continued bar-bench tussle, the judiciary leadership, which also heads the Judicial Council, has publicly requested the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) to recommend its representative to the council citing that the delay has hampered judge appointments.

At an event organised to mark the Council Day on Wednesday, Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, who also chairs the council, said he expects the umbrella body of lawyers to work hand in hand to boost public trust in the judiciary. “I hope the NBA will recommend its representative without further delay,” said Raut.

Other members also said the justice appointment process was delayed due to the absence of an NBA representative at the council.

“The position entrusted with delivering justice should not be left vacant for long,” said Sapana Pradhan Malla, the senior most justice at the top court who also is a council member.

A council seat is vacant, after Ram Prasad Shrestha representing the NBA retired on November 30. The same day, the council administration wrote to the umbrella body to recommend its nominee to fill the vacancy.

Over two weeks later, the association is still reluctant to select its representative mainly because of its soured relationship with the judiciary.

The judiciary and the NBA have been at loggerheads ever since the council led by then-Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha amended its regulation.

The amendment was done such that the chief registrar of the Supreme Court or the council secretary, if appointed a high court judge, would be ranked immediately below the chief judge of the high court.

The association wants the provision revoked, calling it regressive, biased, discriminatory, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and arguing that it contradicts the principles established by the Supreme Court’s verdicts. It claims that the amended regulations unfairly demote judges appointed from among lawyers, placing them below career judges in the hierarchy.

It has been demanding the council halt the judges’ appointment until the amendment is revoked. However, the council’s leadership is unwilling to do so.

Countering the demand, Ram Prasad Bhandari, a member of the council, asked what is it supposed to do if not appoint the judges. “So should the council spend time sleeping?” he asked the NBA’s leadership at the event. “It is wrong for the Bar president to resort to sloganeering on the council's premises.”

Bhandari also reminded the NBA leadership that they were in the council not to act against the lawyers’ association but to perform their legal responsibility.

The NBA leadership has termed Bhandari’s statement as “unexpected” and “unfortunate”. “I don’t understand what message he wanted to give. This doesn’t help build a good relationship,” NBA President Gopal Krishna Ghimire told the Post.

Ghimire is facing a contempt of court case for criticising then-chief justice Shrestha over the appointment of judges based on the amended regulation. On September 27, the council had picked Nripa Dhwoj Niroula and Nityananda Pandey, both high court chief judges, for the Supreme Court.

Criticising the appointment, Ghimire had claimed the recommendations were done in exchange for money. The top court administration had immediately lodged a contempt of court charge against him, which is sub judice.

The central council meeting of the association that concluded in Pokhara earlier this month had demanded immediate withdrawal of the contempt of court charge against Ghimire. Revocation of the amendment to the council’s regulation too is top demand of the NBA.

However, its demands remain unaddressed. Instead, the Supreme Court put the contempt of court case on the cause list on Wednesday. The division bench of justices Nahakul Subedi and Nityananda Pandey had no time to hear the case though.

“I am ready to face the case. This doesn’t mean we will not recommend the council member,” said Ghimire, without giving a timeline.

Led by the chief justice, the council has as members the senior most Supreme Court justice, the law minister and two advocates—one each recommended by the government and the NBA.

A council member nominee must get through parliamentary hearing before being appointed. The entire process will take at least three-four weeks. While the chief justice can call the council’s meeting even as it is not in full shape, he is unlikely to do so, as such a move might deepen the conflict.

Answering lawmakers’ queries at the parliamentary hearing committee before getting appointed chief justice, Prakash Man Singh Raut had claimed that he would resolve the differences with the NBA without delay. However, two months have passed, and there is no sign of a truce.

Ever since taking charge as the head of the judiciary, Raut has been making attempts to fill the vacant positions of the judges and justices but to no avail. NBA’s reluctance to nominate its representative means the vacant positions will not be filled in the near future.

While four justice positions are vacant at the Supreme Court, various high courts are short of 20 judges altogether.

The council has not been able to make any recommendations after Raut became the chief justice in the first week of October. The Supreme Court has never been in full shape for over two years now, which has affected its performance.