Former Chief Justice Parajuli Calls for Sweeping Judicial Reforms, Criticizes Lottery System for Case Allocation

Former Chief Justice Gopal Prasad Parajuli has issued a compelling call for extensive structural and procedural reforms within Nepal's current judicial system. Emphasizing that Nepal's judiciary forms a robust cornerstone of its democratic governance, he underscored the urgent need for systemic changes to modernize and align it with contemporary demands.

In a recent interview, former Chief Justice Parajuli noted that the arrival of new leadership at the Supreme Court has reignited discussions surrounding judicial reform. He stressed that public discourse should prioritize how to make the judiciary more effective, transparent, and service-oriented, rather than devolving into personal accusations or prejudices. For investors and businesses, a stable, predictable, and fair judicial system is paramount, as it underpins the rule of law, ensures contract enforcement, and protects property rights—all critical elements for fostering a confident investment climate.

Central to his vision for reform is the principle of judicial accountability. While the constitution mandates accountability for judges, Parajuli contends that the practical mechanisms to ensure this have not been adequately developed. He asserted that the reform process must originate from judges at all levels, arguing that the current system's failure to sufficiently hold judges accountable is precisely why public trust in the judiciary has wavered. He highlighted that despite the judicial profession being intrinsically linked to the constitution and laws, systemic issues often prevent judges from being as responsible to the nation and its citizens as they should be. The primary duty of a Chief Justice, he clarified, is to lead the judiciary in delivering accessible and timely justice to service-seekers.

Parajuli was particularly critical of the 'Golapratha' (lottery system) currently employed by the Supreme Court for assigning cases. He argued vehemently that this system is neither in accordance with the constitution nor with established legal principles. In a democratic and judicial framework, assigning cases by lottery cannot ensure judicial accountability, he maintained. He further stressed that if the judiciary fails to operate within legal bounds, it is the Parliament's role to provide checks and balances. Therefore, to enhance accountability, the lottery system should be abolished, and cases should be assigned based on judges' expertise and capacity.

He accused the Supreme Court of misusing judges' specialized knowledge through the Golapratha. Many judges possess expertise in specific areas like criminal or civil law, but the lottery system prevents them from applying their specialization, leading to a decline in the quality of judgments. He also advised against the practice of writing unnecessarily lengthy explanations when upholding lower court decisions, suggesting it wastes valuable time and resources.

Addressing the government's preparations for constitutional amendments, Parajuli clarified that judicial reforms could only be effectively addressed through the constitution if there is a consensus among all major political parties. He expressed his belief that a government with a near two-thirds majority should not seek to control or undermine the judiciary but rather create an environment where it can function independently and impartially. He also urged the judiciary to seriously address public concerns that judges are influenced by media reports and that errors occur in criminal justice administration.

Parajuli concluded by stating that delays in justice and case resolution are not primarily due to a lack of manpower but rather stem from structural problems within the justice system itself. He pointed out that despite having sufficient judges, the backlog of cases persists, indicating systemic weaknesses. He noted that the inability to properly manage which judge handles which type of case from the outset affects 60 to 70 percent of all cases. While rectifying procedural errors can be challenging, structural flaws can be more easily modified with suggestions from Parliament and experts. Finally, he advocated for the investigation of assets belonging to judges and government attorneys, in line with practices in developed countries, to ensure their complete transparency and accountability to the nation and its citizens. Such measures would significantly bolster public and investor confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.