The Nepali Judiciary - Supreme Court Of Nepal

Although, the judiciary is directly accountable to the Constitution and law, it is indirectly
accountable towards the people also. There are two challenges that disseminate wrong message
about judicial accountability. Firstly is the lack of proper dissemination of information about the
good works of the judiciary. Due to its traditional infrastructure and works, the court cannot go
before the people and this is a bitter truth which the judiciary has to digest. The judiciary has not
been able to present itself closely to the people and as such people have not been able to
experience the judiciary closely. During the interaction with the concerned stakeholders, it has
been voiced that the proceedings of the judge and bench should be transmitted, that judges and
court personnel through various programs should make an effort to reach out to the people, that
orientation programs should be conducted in villages, wards, schools and colleges and that
knowledge about the judicial proceedings should be disseminated through media and publication
of materials.
Likewise, the code of conduct for judges and employees should be strictly followed so as to
maintain judicial morality and discipline. In order to make the mechanism for controlling
irregularities more efficient and effective, the role of the Judicial Council needs to be expanded.
Through regular monitoring and inspection, errors committed during judicial procedures can be
rectified. Likewise, the Parliamentarian Committee should also effectively observe the judicial
activities. Provided, if without any biasness mechanism for parliamentarian control over the judges
can be made, then judicial accountability would be more clear and intelligible.
4.1.9 Legal Reform and Research
In order to bring reform in the judicial proceedings there has to be timely reform and review in the
prevailing legal provisions. During the implementation of the first Plan, area of reform and review of
the legal provisions had been identified. Efforts have been made towards formulating new laws.
Civil and criminal code and procedural code have been drafted and are being discussed. Likewise,
other Acts are being drafted and discussed. During the period of the first Plan, a Committee had
been constituted to review the laws so as to simplify court procedures. The Committee had
identified five areas for formulating and amending the laws and subsequently had submitted its
recommendation. Pursuant to the recommendations, amendments to the regulations of the courts
have been carried out and draft Bill on bail and limitation has been prepared. Identification and
drafting of various Bills can be taken as an opportunity for this Plan.
The judiciary can identify areas for legal reform but does not have the capacity to draft the laws.
Although the areas of legal reform have been identified, the drafting of laws is a long process and
since this process falls within the ambit of the Legislative, the judiciary has a very limited role.
During the transitional phase, drafting of laws has not been every effective and as such it is
deemed that this sector may not achieve the desires result as envisaged by the Plan.
Drafting of procedures deemed necessary for judicial work should be entrusted upon the judiciary
and this is a basic aspect of independence of judiciary. Judiciaries of many countries have been
exercising this right directly from the Constitution. In this context, rather than being dependent
upon the legislative for bringing out reforms in the procedural laws, provided this right is given to
the judiciary then the problem would be permanently resolved. Where a new Constitution is in the
process of being written, this opportunity should be taken and the Plan should initiate campaigns in
this regard. Besides this, problems may be resolved by making timely reforms in the regulations of
the court. Provided, the Legislative were to amend some of the complex procedurals prescribed
60