KATHMANDU, July 3: Supreme Court (SC) Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla has issued a dissenting opinion on the court’s decision to uphold the legitimacy of 52 constitutional appointments, criticizing the judiciary’s delay in delivering justice.
Expressing disagreement with the majority verdict, Justice Malla invoked the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied,” acknowledging institutional shortcomings and calling for introspection.
The writ petition challenging the appointments was filed on December 16, 2020, shortly after the appointments were made in Mangsir (November/December) of the same year. Malla questioned why such a significant case remained undecided for over four and a half years.
‘Justice is dying in Nepal. Let’s save it!’
In her opinion, she stated, “Leaving a case undecided for 4.5 years neither allows a crucial constitutional body to function effectively nor shows the judiciary fulfilling its responsibility.”
She emphasized that timely verdicts are essential to avoid prolonged uncertainty. “Delivering justice means delivering decisions on time,” she wrote.
Malla issued a directive order (paramadesh) calling for future appointments in constitutional bodies to follow a transparent, competitive, and professional process.
“To ensure independent, capable, and professional appointments in constitutional bodies, it is hereby ordered that appointments and recommendations proceed transparently and competitively,” her directive stated.
She also stressed that legal provisions alone are not sufficient to strengthen democracy without the integrity and efficiency of implementing institutions.
“All constitutional provisions become meaningful only when appointments are based on open competition, professionalism, merit, and integrity,” she said.
Justice Malla concluded her dissent with a note of self-reflection, stating that the judiciary must avoid such delays in the future and restore public trust in timely justice.
