Career judges lose ground as lawyers gain sway in Nepal’s judiciary

Nepal’s Judicial Council recommended four High Court judges for the Supreme Court on October 6. The selection became controversial because only one nominee had followed the full district-to-High-Court judicial path. Judges and retired judges questioned whether experience, seniority and tested performance had received enough weight.

The nominees were Ratna Bahadur Bagchand, Chandra Bahadur Saru, Janak Pandey and Gokarna Dangi. Pandey and Dangi entered the High Courts after legal practice. Judges argued that Tek Narayan Kunwar and Narishwar Bhandari had stronger claims based on seniority and performance. Kunwar ranked first and Bhandari fifth among ten judges recognised for case adjudication.

The dispute matters because career judges are already absent from the Supreme Court, while their share in High Courts is declining. The Former Judges Forum urged the council to prioritise tested judicial experience and proposed that at least 80 percent of High Court and Supreme Court judges have district-court experience.

A career judge is someone who enters Nepal’s judicial service at district level and advances through the ranks. This route exposes a judge to lower-court cases before promotion to the High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court. The Former Judges Forum considers that tested experience important for adjudication quality.

The alternative route begins in legal practice or another legal role. A person may later be appointed directly to a High Court, rather than progressing from district judge through the hierarchy. The article identifies Janak Pandey and Gokarna Dangi as examples: both came from legal practice before becoming High Court judges on January 13, 2017.

The difference has become significant because career judges are disappearing from higher courts. No career judges remain on the Supreme Court, and their share of High Court judges is falling. Critics fear appointments could value connections or preference over seniority, performance and long judicial experience.

The Judicial Council recommended four High Court judges for Supreme Court appointment on October 6. Only one of those four had risen through both the district and High Courts. The article presents this as the central fact behind criticism from serving judges and retired judges.

The four nominees were Ratna Bahadur Bagchand, Chandra Bahadur Saru, Janak Pandey and Gokarna Dangi. Pandey and Dangi had entered the legal profession before their High Court appointments in 2017. The council also said Saru’s selection partly ensured representation of Indigenous nationalities, showing that more than judicial seniority can influence the outcome.

The figure is important because the Supreme Court has no career judges at all. The Former Judges Forum warned that career judges were also declining in the High Courts. It urged the council to prioritise judges whose work had already been tested in district courts and called for an 80 percent experience benchmark.

Nepal’s Judicial Council is the body that recommended the four High Court judges for the Supreme Court. The council was led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma. Before the latest decision, Sharma had said career judges would receive priority, which raised expectations among judges who had advanced through district courts.

Several factors can shape recommendations. Judges pointed to seniority and judicial performance, noting that Tek Narayan Kunwar ranked above Chandra Bahadur Saru and that Kunwar and Narishwar Bhandari ranked first and fifth among ten judges recognised for case adjudication. The council also said Saru’s selection partly ensured Indigenous-nationality representation. Legal experience matters too, since some nominees came from legal practice.

The debate concerns how these factors are balanced. Critics say judges appointed to High Courts after 2013 received priority, while others argue that tested judgments and seniority should dominate. The decision also left one possible Supreme Court position unfilled.

Article 129 of Nepal’s Constitution sets eligibility criteria for Supreme Court judges. Clause 5 says a Nepali citizen with a bachelor’s degree in law may qualify through several forms of experience. The article presents these routes as alternatives, not as one single career requirement.

The stated routes include at least five years as a High Court chief judge or judge; at least 15 continuous years as a senior advocate or advocate; and at least 15 years working in justice or law while gaining a reputation as a distinguished jurist. The text also begins another route requiring at least 12 years of service, but the provided excerpt ends before identifying its field or full conditions.

These rules help explain why lawyers and career judges can both be eligible. The current dispute is not simply about constitutional eligibility. It concerns which eligible candidates the Judicial Council should prefer, and whether seniority, performance and district-court experience receive enough weight.

District-court experience gives judges a long record of handling cases before they reach higher courts. The Former Judges Forum argued that this experience helps maintain adjudication quality. It warned that career judges were declining in the High Courts and had reached zero in the Supreme Court, while judgment quality was also deteriorating.

The forum’s proposed response was specific. It asked the Judicial Council to prioritise judges whose work had already been tested in district courts. It also called for at least 80 percent of High Court judges to have district-judge experience, with the same proportion maintained in Supreme Court appointments. Kunwar and Bhandari were cited as strong performance examples.

If experienced career judges become less represented, the forum fears weaker institutional knowledge and declining public confidence. The article does not report a measured causal result, but it records the warning that appointments should favour capable, impartial and honest candidates whose work has been tested through the judicial hierarchy.

A strong judiciary needs judges who understand legal argument and judges whose decisions have been tested through years of judging. Lawyers can bring deep knowledge of advocacy and legal practice. Career judges bring experience handling cases in district courts and moving through the judicial hierarchy. The article presents both as legitimate routes under Article 129.

The balance matters during appointments. The latest nominees included people who came from legal practice, while judges argued that Tek Narayan Kunwar and Narishwar Bhandari deserved consideration based on seniority and performance. The council also considered representation, selecting Chandra Bahadur Saru partly to represent Indigenous nationalities. These choices show that appointment systems weigh several public-interest factors.

Independence also requires decisions based on ability rather than favourites. The Former Judges Forum called for capable, impartial and honest judges, and for 80 percent district-court experience. The article’s concern is that losing career judges may damage confidence and judgment quality if tested judicial experience is consistently undervalued.