KATHMANDU: A meeting of the Constitutional Council on Thursday that recommended Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma for the post of chief justice witnessed sharp disagreement between Prime Minister Balen Shah and Leader of the Opposition Bhishmaraj Angdembe over the issue of judicial seniority and constitutional practice.
Sources said the meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Shah, lasted for more than one and a half hours and was possibly among the lengthiest high-level Constitutional Council meetings in recent times.
The dispute began after Shah proposed the name of Justice Sharma, who is ranked fourth in seniority among Supreme Court judges, for appointment as the next chief justice.
According to sources present at the meeting, most members remained silent after the proposal, but opposition leader Angdembe objected and urged the prime minister to withdraw the recommendation.
“Seniority has been overlooked. This proposal should be withdrawn. It is not appropriate to break long-established tradition,” Angdembe reportedly told the meeting. “The prime minister should not act against constitutional norms.”
In response, Prime Minister Shah defended the recommendation, arguing that it was based on judicial performance and case disposal statistics.
“The recommendation has been made on the basis of data collected regarding judicial performance,” Shah said.
Angdembe, however, maintained that constitutional procedure and tradition should guide the appointment process rather than performance indicators alone.
“Names should be proposed in line with established procedure and tradition. We cannot accept a move that violates constitutional practice,” he said.
Shah then reportedly cited comparative statistics between Justice Sharma and senior-most Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla.
“Justice Manoj Sharma has reportedly delivered around 7,500 verdicts over the past five years, while Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla has issued only around 4,000,” Shah said during the meeting.
Angdembe countered that the issue was not about the number of cases disposed of, but about respecting the constitutional convention of appointing the senior-most justice.
“The Constitution’s envisioned practice and institutional tradition should not be violated,” he argued.
After prolonged debate failed to produce consensus, Angdembe submitted a formal note of dissent against the recommendation, sources said.
Comment