NBA unsatisfied with appointment of judges

Kathmandu, October 20-The Nepal Bar Association (NBA) today expressed dissatisfaction with Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Paudel over the recent appointment of Supreme Court justices and poor representation of lawyers in the judiciary.

A delegation led by NBA president Shambhu Thapa expressed dissatisfaction with Chief Justice Paudel during a meeting. Noting that the Chief Justice had promised to appoint three lawyers as judges of the Supreme Court, the delegation said he had not been able to live up to his promise.

It may be noted that five Appellate Court Chief Judges were appointed as the Supreme Court Judges a month ago. Immediately after his appointment as the Chief Justice, Paudel had assured the NBA that he would select three lawyers as Supreme Court judges.

“We have clearly said that the Chief Justice did not live up to his words while appointing Supreme Court judges,” a central member of the NBA, Tikaram Bhattarai, told reports the Himalaya times. “The Chief Justice has he will keep the promise in the future,” he added.

The Chief Justice-headed Judicial Council recommends names to the King for the appointment of judges.“There are five vacancies presently,” Paudel said, adding: “The new appointments will also include lawyers.”

The Chief Justice and Supreme Court Registrar Dr Ram Krishna Timalsena held discussions with the NBA representatives for about an hour.President Thapa, vice-president Sher Bahadur KC, general secretary Madhav Banskota and members Tika Ram Bhattarai, Bhim Dhakal represented the NBA delegation.
During a meeting, Paudel assured the lawyers that the Supreme Court will give priority on hearing of the cases of national importance.Paudel also promised that he will schedule the case seeking the reinstatement of the dissolved House of Representatives in bench.

During the meeting, Thapa said six professional organisations of lawyers, journalists, professors, teachers, engineers and doctors will file a writ petition at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the recently-promulgated controversial Media Ordinance that amended five acts related to the media in the country.