KATHMANDU: The Former Judges Forum, Nepal, has expressed serious concerns over the Supreme Court’s recent verdict validating the appointment of 52 constitutional officials made during then-and-now Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s government in 2020 and 2021.

The Forum alleges that these appointments were unconstitutional, enabled by executive ordinances that unlawfully amended the Constitutional Council’s quorum requirements.

The appointments followed two controversial ordinances issued in 2020, which lowered the quorum needed for the Constitutional Council to function. The Forum argues that such amendments, enacted through executive authority rather than parliamentary legislation, violate the spirit and letter of Nepal’s Constitution. They warned that this practice undermines constitutional supremacy and opens the door to executive overreach.

The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench delivered its verdict on July 2 dismissing writ petitions challenging the legality of the appointments. However, the Former Judges Forum highlighted several troubling aspects of the ruling.

They criticized the interpretation that parliamentary rules could restrict Parliament’s constitutional right under Article 292(1) to conduct hearings, labeling this a misinterpretation and misuse of constitutional provisions.

The Forum also pointed out judicial contradictions within the verdict, noting that while the majority upheld the appointments, one justice issued a mandamus order emphasizing the necessity of parliamentary hearings, creating confusion and inconsistency in judicial reasoning.

The Former Judges Forum urged adherence to constitutional principles and warned that allowing executive intervention through ordinances in constitutional appointments threatens the independence of the judiciary and the balance of power in Nepal’s governance.

They called for corrective measures to protect constitutional processes and ensure transparency and accountability in public appointments.