Acting Chief Justice’s intervention or unnecessary judicial overreach?

KATHMANDU: The latest controversy inside Nepal’s judiciary has raised a difficult but important question: Was Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla’s intervention necessary to protect access to justice, or does it signal deeper institutional dysfunction within the Supreme Court itself?

At the center of the dispute lies an uncomfortable reality — writ petitions and applications challenging registrar decisions allegedly remained stalled inside the Supreme Court administration without registration. For any constitutional democracy, such an allegation strikes at the heart of judicial credibility. Courts exist not merely to deliver judgments, but to guarantee access to justice. If a citizen cannot even get a petition registered, the promise of constitutional remedies becomes meaningless.

From that perspective, Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla appears to have acted within a constitutional obligation rather than mere administrative preference. Her order explicitly argues that court administration has no authority to “hold” petitions indefinitely, particularly in matters that ultimately fall within judicial determination. If petitions are blocked before reaching the bench, it raises the specter of administrative gatekeeping replacing judicial scrutiny.

Yet the episode also exposes an alarming institutional contradiction.

If the Acting Chief Justice herself had to intervene to compel the registration of petitions, what does this say about the Supreme Court’s internal governance? Courts derive legitimacy from procedural predictability, neutrality, and institutional discipline. A system where petitions can allegedly be stalled based on informal instructions — reportedly even involving judges recommended for the chief justice position — risks creating an impression that access to justice depends on power dynamics rather than law.

This is where criticism of unnecessary intervention deserves closer examination.

Ordinarily, a chief justice or acting chief justice stepping into day-to-day administrative matters can invite criticism of micromanagement or executive-style interference. Courts function through established registries, registrars, and procedural rules precisely to prevent excessive concentration of authority. Judicial independence is not only freedom from outside interference; it also requires internal institutional checks.

However, this case may represent an exception rather than overreach.

When administrative mechanisms themselves are accused of obstructing constitutional petitions, the question changes fundamentally. The issue is no longer whether the chief justice intervened too much — but whether failing to intervene would have legitimized an alleged obstruction of justice.

Malla’s order repeatedly invokes constitutional rights, particularly the principle that every citizen has an inherent right to knock on the doors of the court. Her legal basis — citing Article 136 of the Constitution, the Judicial Administration Act, 2073, and Supreme Court Regulations, 2074 — suggests the intervention was framed as an emergency corrective measure rather than discretionary activism.

Still, the optics remain troubling.

The fact that the Supreme Court administration reportedly cited instructions from judges as a reason for delaying registration points to a judiciary wrestling with internal opacity. This controversy is less about one order and more about whether Nepal’s highest court has sufficient institutional safeguards against procedural manipulation.

The larger risk is public confidence. When litigants begin to suspect that petitions can be selectively delayed, held, or influenced internally, trust in the judiciary weakens — often more rapidly than in any other state institution. Courts ultimately depend not on force, but on public belief in fairness.

The immediate issue may now be resolved with the order to register pending writs and list them for hearing. But the deeper question remains unanswered: How did the Supreme Court reach a point where the Acting Chief Justice had to intervene simply to ensure petitions were formally registered?

That is the issue Nepal’s judiciary cannot afford to ignore.