On October 6, the Judicial Council recommended four judges from the High Courts for appointment to the Supreme Court, but left one position unfilled despite having the option to recommend five candidates, including for a vacancy expected to arise shortly.

The council, led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, recommended Ratna Bahadur Bagchand, chief judge of the High Court in Pokhara, and High Court judges Chandra Bahadur Saru, Janak Pandey, and Gokarna Dangi.

The recommendations have disappointed judges who began their careers in district courts and advanced through the judicial hierarchy. Before the appointments, Sharma had said he would give priority to career judges, a term used for judges who enter the judicial service at district level and advance through the ranks of the judiciary. Critics say the latest selection instead favoured lawyers and those appointed directly to High Courts from the legal service.

Of the four nominees, only one had risen through the district and High Courts, and this has raised questions about why judicial experience and seniority were not given greater weight.

Had the selections been based on seniority and judicial performance, Tek Narayan Kunwar and Narishwar Bhandari would have been among those recommended, according to the argument made by judges familiar with the process. Although Bhandari ranked lower in seniority, Kunwar was ranked below Bagchand but above Saru.

Eight High Court judges who had previously served as district judges were eligible for promotion to the Supreme Court. They included Kunwar, Saru, Bhandari, Murari Babu Shrestha, Sudarshan Pandey, Kiran Pokharel, and Dipendra Adhikari. The council has said Saru was selected partly to ensure representation of Indigenous nationalities.

The council’s recommendations also drew attention to judicial performance. Kunwar and Bhandari were among the 10 judges recognised for their performance in adjudicating cases this year, ranking first and fifth, respectively. Neither judge had faced any publicly linked to any controversy. Yet judges appointed to the High Courts after 2013 were given priority.

Pandey and Dangi came from legal practice before being appointed High Court judges on January 13, 2017.

A High Court judge hoping to advance to the Supreme Court said the decision had undermined the expectations of judges who had spent years building their careers through the lower courts.

“We have worked for years in district and High Courts, trying to prove our ability through our judgments to reach the Supreme Court. If the leadership does not value experience, that is unfair,” the judge said. “If appointments are based on picking favourites rather than merit, how can the courts and the quality of justice improve?”

Concerns over the declining presence of career judges in the High and Supreme Courts have also been raised by the Former Judges Forum, Nepal, an organisation of retired judges. In a statement issued on July 31, 2025, the forum had urged the Judicial Council to prioritise judges whose work had already been tested in district courts when making appointments to higher courts.

It was the first time the forum had formally approached the council over judicial appointments. It warned that the number of career judges was falling in the High Courts and had reached zero in the Supreme Court, while the quality of judgments was also deteriorating.

The forum called for at least 80 percent of High Court judges to have experience as district judges and for the same proportion to be maintained in appointments to the Supreme Court.

“Only capable, impartial and honest individuals should be selected as judges to strengthen public confidence in the judiciary through fair, independent and effective justice based on the Constitution, the law and established principles of justice,” the forum said. It argued that judges whose performance had already been tested in the district and High Courts should be given priority when appointments are made to the higher judiciary.

The forum’s position is that experience gained by handling cases at district level and progressing through the judicial hierarchy is essential to maintaining the quality of adjudication.

No career judges on the Supreme Court

Article 129 of Nepal’s Constitution sets out the eligibility criteria for Supreme Court judges. Under Clause 5, a Nepali citizen who holds a bachelor’s degree in law may qualify after serving for at least five years as a chief judge or judge of a High Court, practising continuously for at least 15 years as a senior advocate or advocate, working for at least 15 years in the field of justice or law and gaining a reputation as a distinguished jurist, or serving for at least 12 years in a gazetted first-class or higher position in the judicial service.

The Supreme Court currently has 17 justices. Another position will fall vacant when Justice Binod Sharma retires in November.

There are no career justices on the Supreme Court who began as district judges and later rose through the higher courts. Seven justices, or about 42 percent of the bench, were appointed directly from legal practice. Nine, or 52 percent, reached the Supreme Court through the High Courts.

Seven justices, equivalent to 41 percent of the bench, came from backgrounds in the judicial service, government attorney service, or private legal practice. Four justices who had first been appointed to High Courts from private legal practice later advanced to the Supreme Court. Overall, 12 justices, or about 70 percent of the bench, have a background in private practice, according to the figures cited in the analysis.

The last career justice to serve on the Supreme Court was former Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha, who retired on October 5, 2024. He began his judicial career as a district judge in Darchula on May 16, 1988, and became a permanent Supreme Court justice on August 1, 2016.

Nepal has had 32 chief justices since the establishment of the Pradhan Nyayalaya, the predecessor to the Supreme Court, in 1951. The current chief justice, Manoj Kumar Sharma, is the 32nd. Former Supreme Court justice Krishna Jung Rayamajhi has described the period under the 31st chief justice, Prakash Man Singh Raut, as the beginning of a “new phase” in the judiciary’s 74-year history.

The idea of a career judge in the modern sense took hold only after the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990; the earlier system did not follow the same career path.

Bishwanath Upadhyaya, who became chief justice in 1991, had moved from the Law Ministry to a regional court before reaching the Supreme Court and eventually leading the judiciary. After Upadhyaya, Anup Raj Sharma was the only chief justice appointed directly to the Supreme Court from legal practice. He joined the court as a lawyer and later became chief justice.

Sushila Karki and Hari Krishna Karki also followed a route from legal practice to the Supreme Court leadership. Cholendra Shumsher Rana and Gopal Prasad Parajuli became chief justices after appointments to High Courts.

According to Rayamajhi, a succession pattern favouring chief justices appointed directly from legal practice or elevated directly to higher courts took hold during Raut’s tenure. Supreme Court justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Prasad Phuyal, all appointed directly from private legal practice, were in line to lead the judiciary.

They were to be followed by Nahakul Subedi and Nripadhwaj Niraula, with the succession sequence extending to 2035. Subedi and Niraula reached the Supreme Court after serving as chief registrars of the Supreme Court and being appointed directly as chief judges of High Courts.

Rayamajhi said chief justices and justices must be selected on the basis of merit and ability. Although the Constitution establishes eligibility criteria, he alleged that political bargaining had increasingly taken precedence over the selection of the most qualified candidates.

“Political affiliation should be unacceptable for someone aspiring to become a justice. But it is disturbing to hear that the CPN-UML, Nepali Congress, and Maoists have been allocated their respective shares,” he said. “The Supreme Court should bring in highly respected, independent people. Instead, it has been filled through quotas.”

Lawyers outnumber career judges in High Courts

The declining representation of career judges is also evident in the High Courts, according to Judicial Council figures up to mid-August.

Of the 152 judges serving in the High Courts, 70 had been appointed from legal practice, 56 had risen from district courts, and 26 had come from the judicial or legal services. Judges from district courts account for 37 percent of the total, while those with a legal-practice background account for 46 percent. Non-career judges make up about 64 percent of High Court judges.

Former High Court chief judge Keshari Raj Pandit believes the Judicial Council’s leadership bears more responsibility for the trend than the Constitution itself.

Article 140 of the Constitution sets out the eligibility requirements for High Court judges. A Nepali citizen who holds a bachelor’s degree in law may qualify after serving for at least five years as a district judge, practising continuously for at least 10 years as a senior advocate or advocate, working for at least 10 years in legal teaching, research or another area of law or justice, or serving for at least five years in a gazetted first-class position in the judicial service.

The Constitution also specifies how candidates should be assessed. For district judges, the criteria include the proportion of cases decided annually and the extent to which their judgments are upheld, reversed or overturned by higher courts. Candidates from the judicial service are assessed on seniority, qualifications and performance, while others are assessed on seniority, continuity of professional practice, integrity, professional conduct, and contributions to law and justice.

Pandit said that, although the Constitution does not stipulate fixed quotas for different professional backgrounds, the council’s choices have effectively determined how many Supreme Court justices come from the judicial service and how many are appointed directly from the legal profession.

“When the focus shifts away from career judges towards recruiting party workers and relatives, rather than identifying the most capable candidates, this is the result.”

Why career judges matter

Pandit argues that judging requires more than legal knowledge. A judge’s personal experience, understanding of justice and awareness of the impact of decisions on society all shape how cases are decided.

“Justice is about trust. It rests on faith,” he said. “If that faith is maintained, confidence in justice and judges can endure for years. If it is lost, it can collapse very quickly.”

Political involvement in judicial appointments is not unique to Nepal. In the United States, judges are appointed through a politically influenced process. In the United Kingdom, political consultation is built into the selection process for Supreme Court judges, with politicians consulted at two stages when recommendations are made by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

India uses a collegium system, under which senior judges play a central role in appointments. Yet that system has also faced criticism over continuing political influence, the dominance of particular groups and internal politics within the judiciary. There have been calls to seek alternatives to the existing arrangement.

Former Supreme Court justice Pawan Kumar Ojha said appointments from the legal profession had drawn criticism over growing political influence on the Judicial Council and the perceived unfair treatment of serving judges and judicial-service officials. Such concerns, he said, highlighted the need for balance in judicial appointments.

“The Constitution was designed to allow people with different backgrounds and abilities to become judges, so that people could obtain justice from the courts,” Ojha said. “There may be criticism that the current arrangement is not right or that some groups are being left out, but there must be balance.”

Appointing lawyers as judges is a long-standing practice in many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Canada and Australia. Ojha said lawyers bring fresh thinking and can help make courts more dynamic by drawing on their experience representing different kinds of litigants.

At the same time, he acknowledged that adjudication is a distinct and multidimensional discipline in which career judges have an important role.

“Judges need judicial discretion, integrity and ethical conduct, as well as theoretical and practical knowledge of how to dispense justice,” he said. “Experience comes only after long practice. Judges who have progressed from district courts through High Courts to the Supreme Court tend to have that maturity.”

Rayamajhi similarly argued that the High and Supreme Courts would be incomplete without career judges, because cases move through the judicial system from district courts to the highest court. Experience at each level, he said, is therefore essential to sound decision-making.

Advocates of career judges also argue that judging requires a combination of integrity, ethical conduct and the ability to assess cases and deliver sound decisions. A person with honesty but inadequate judicial skills may be unable to dispense justice effectively, while a technically capable judge who abuses that ability through corruption or dishonesty is equally unfit for the role. They contend that a career on the bench offers the sustained experience needed to develop these qualities.

Bijaya Kumar Mishra, president of the Nepal Bar Association, disagrees with the view that judges must have risen through the judicial ranks to be effective. He argues that a person’s ability to deliver justice matters more than whether they come from the judiciary, government service, or private legal practice.

“Anyone capable of dispensing justice should be eligible to become a judge. The position should not be restricted to people from a particular background,” Mishra said. “Some career judges have also deviated from judicial standards, while lawyers appointed as judges have delivered excellent judgments. Good and bad people exist in every group. The Judicial Council must identify capable and honest candidates rather than exclude one group in favour of another.”