The crisis in the judiciary has deepened further. The Supreme Court has not heard a single case since October 25 except for some habeas corpus petitions. While Nepal Bar Association, the umbrella organisation of lawyers across the country, has upped the ante—it has decided not to participate in even habeas corpus hearings—justices are under moral pressure. The 19 Supreme Court justices who have been demanding Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana’s resignation are well aware that they cannot boycott the benches for long. They want political parties to take up the issue and make efforts to remove Rana from office.

Political parties, however, have maintained that a solution to the crisis in the judiciary must be found from within.

The parties in the ruling coalition lack the numbers individually to even file an impeachment motion against Rana. The only party that has enough numbers to file such a motion is the CPN-UML, but it has, albeit indirectly, rallied behind Rana. The party believes if Rana were to be impeached, four other judges who were members in the Constitutional Bench that overturned House dissolution also need to be impeached. The Constitutional Bench led by Rana on July 12 had overturned the decision of UML chair KP Sharma Oli, who was then prime minister, to dissolve the House and ordered Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba’s appointment as prime minister.

Many say political parties are hesitating to make a move against Rana, for a number of cases that are somehow related to them are pending in the Supreme Court.

Gagan Thapa, a Nepali Congress leader, said ruling party leaders fear that the chief justice could take revenge if the impeachment motion fails and he returns to preside over the Supreme Court.

As per the constitutional provisions, the chief justice cannot discharge duties as soon as an impeachment motion is filed, but for impeaching him, the motion needs to be endorsed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority, which is highly unlikely.

“The stalemate in the Supreme Court will continue for some more days, as the ruling alliance does not appear to be keen on making any move,” Thapa told the Post.

One of the cases that is pending in the Supreme Court is related to lawmakers from the CPN (Unified Socialist), which was formed after splitting from the UML.

The UML on August 17 had expelled as many as 14 of its lawmakers, including Madhav Nepal, and notified the Parliament Secretariat. However, Speaker Agni Sapkota refused to issue a notice regarding their expulsion.

On August 26 , Nepal registered CPN (Unified Socalist) at the Election Commission under his leadership. UML chair Oli has filed a case against Speaker Sapkota and the Election Commission. A decision in Oli’s favour could mean the dissolution of Madhav Nepal’s party, which is a coalition partner in the Deuba government.

Any action against Nepal’s party could affect the Deuba government.

A murder case against Speaker Sapkota is also pending in the Supreme Court. He has been accused in the insurgency-era murder of Arjun Lama of Kavre district.

Yet another case that is pending in the Supreme Court is against Madhav Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai, the federal council chair of the Janata Samajbadi Party, which is also a coalition partner in the Deuba government.

Petitions against constitutional appointments made during Oli’s tenure are also pending in the Supreme Court. The UML does not want those appointments to be quashed.

Sunil Pokhrel, former general secretary of the Nepal Bar Association, said either Rana has to quit or he should be impeached for him to be out of office.

Rana has already made it clear that he is not going to step down. He has instead gone on the offensive, assigning cases to justices to put pressure on them. Rana has also said that if the justices want to continue their protests, they should first resign.

“The situation is tricky,” said Pokhrel. “The ruling alliance is not confident of the appointment of a new chief justice after Rana is removed.”

The Constitutional Council has to recommend the chief justice. If Oli and National Assembly chair Ganesh Timilsina refuse to attend, the Constitutional Council cannot hold a meeting. An ordinance to ease the convening of the meeting and making recommendations, introduced by Oli, has already been repealed by the Deuba government. Oli had introduced the ordinance after Deuba, as the opposition leader, and Speaker Sapkota refused to attend the council meeting.

If Rana is somehow removed, Justice Deepak Karki will automatically be acting chief justice.

“The council has to recommend the acting chief justice as chief justice. An acting chief justice cannot lead the Judicial Council. If there is no chief justice, the Judicial Council will become non-functional,” said Pokhrel. “The ruling alliance also fears that its attempt to remove Rana will be politicised by the main opposition during the elections.”

Amid growing calls for the parties to act, politicians now are saying they do not want to interfere in the judiciary, as it is an independent organ of the state. Observers say such statements by the parties are hypocritical. According to them, the current crisis in the judiciary had been in the making for years as Nepal’s political parties have highly politicised the judiciary.

Judges in the Supreme Court have long been appointed under party quotas.

“It’s not easy to defuse the current crisis in the judiciary,” said Radheshyam Adhikari, a Nepali Congress leader, who is also an advocate. “Impeaching Rana is almost impossible as political parties are divided.”

According to Adhikari, the ruling alliance is concerned about the current crisis in the judiciary but the partners are clueless about their next move.

“Since impeachment is not a possibility at this time, the only way is to build pressure on Rana to step down,” he said. “We might face a problem in appointing a new chief justice, but we will deal with that later. The issue at hand is Rana’s removal.”

Dev Gurung, a Standing Committee member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), said that the judiciary itself should resolve the crisis without parties’ involvement.

“The crisis in the judiciary is not on our agenda and this is not a subject that we should be worried about,” Gurung told the Post. “This issue does not come under our purview. If this issue becomes the agenda of Parliament, then we can think about it. Otherwise, we are not interested in it.”

But it is the political parties that can make the issue an agenda of Parliament.

Gurung declined to elaborate.