Nepal’s Judicial Council, the constitutional body responsible for judicial appointments, recommended four judges for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 6, 2026.
However, two of its members, seniormost Supreme Court Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and legal expert Mahesh Kumar Nepal, issued a ‘note of dissent’ over the selection process, citing bypassed seniority, lack of inclusivity, and the exclusion of legal professionals.
The Council’s meeting, chaired by Chief Justice Dr. Manoj Sharma, decided to recommend Dr. Ratna Bahadur Bagchand, Chief Judge of Pokhara High Court, along with High Court judges Chandra Bahadur Saru, Janak Pandey, and Gokarna Danghi, for appointment to the Supreme Court.
Seniority bypassed in recommendations
The recommendations have drawn criticism from Council members and legal professionals for overlooking several senior High Court chief judges and judges. Among those bypassed are Chief Judges Rajan Prasad Bhattarai of Biratnagar High Court, Lal Bahadur Kunwar of Patan High Court, Hari Prasad Bhandari of Surkhet High Court, and Rajeshwor Tiwari of Tulsipur High Court. These judges were higher in the seniority list but were not recommended for the Supreme Court.
Conversely, High Court judges Chandra Bahadur Saru, Janak Pandey, and Gokarna Danghi, who are ranked fifth, thirteenth, and sixteenth respectively in the seniority order among High Court judges, were recommended. Justice Malla expressed strong objection to the deviation from the established seniority system within the judiciary, arguing that objective reasons and justifications should have been provided for deeming senior judges unqualified.
Concerns over inclusivity and legal representation
The recommendation process has also faced criticism for neglecting principles of inclusivity and the representation of legal professionals. In her note of dissent, Justice Malla specifically highlighted the oversight of women and the Madhesi community in the appointments. Historically, legal professionals from the Nepal Bar Association were also recommended for Supreme Court positions, but no lawyers were included in this round of recommendations.
Professor Dr. Bijay Prasad Mishra, President of the Nepal Bar Association, expressed grave dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision. He stated that the Council “continued the old distorted tradition” and failed to consult the Bar Association, thereby disregarding inclusive principles. Dr. Mishra added that such actions demoralize honest individuals working within the judiciary.
Transparency and constitutional principles questioned
Justice Malla further questioned the overall transparency and scientific basis of the selection process itself. She emphasized that the Supreme Court, as the ultimate guardian of citizens’ rights against the abuse of power, requires a judicial appointment process that fosters accountability, trust, and faith in the judiciary.
According to Article 153(1) of Nepal’s Constitution, the Judicial Council is envisioned as a five-member high-level constitutional body tasked with recommending or consulting on judicial appointments and disciplinary matters.
Malla’s dissent stated that making recommendations without establishing objective criteria, bypassing evaluations, and reaching informal agreements in an opaque, unscientific, and unreliable manner is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Judicial Council Act, 2073, and established principles of justice. The Judicial Council Act, 2073, and the Judicial Council Regulations, 2074, govern the Council’s operations.
Chief Justice Dr. Manoj Sharma, Federal Minister for Law and Justice Sobita Gautam, and Council member Damodar Khadka unanimously agreed on the recommendations, according to Council sources. Concerns about political interference in judicial appointments and the Judicial Council’s perceived inability to prevent it have been ongoing.
Next steps: Parliamentary hearing and presidential appointment
The judges recommended by the Judicial Council must now undergo a parliamentary hearing process. According to the Federal Parliament’s Joint Meeting and Joint Committee (Operation) Regulations, 2080, the Parliamentary Hearing Committee must conduct a hearing and submit its opinion on the proposed appointments to the relevant body within 45 days of receiving the recommendation. If the committee fails to make a decision within 45 days, the recommendation is automatically deemed approved. Following parliamentary approval, the President will formally appoint the judges.
