KATHMANDU: Prime Minister Sushila Karki decided to appoint Khagendra Sunar as the Minister of Labor on October 25. He was recommended to the president for appointment. Sunar turned out to be the defendant in pending criminal cases in various districts. After this fact became public, his appointment was widely criticized. As the swearing-in preparations were underway, the prime minister withdrew his name. This incident raised the question: had his background been checked before the recommendation, this embarrassing situation would not have arisen. Sunar’s controversy is not personal; it is a failure of the system.

The controversy is not limited to Sunar. Earlier, another name was discussed for a minister position in the same government—Dr. Sangeeta Kaushal Mishra. A former Director-General of the Department of Health Services and a woman who reached a high post from the Madhesi community, she was in the race to become the Health Secretary. She did not get the secretarial appointment. After that, there was a buzz that she would become the Health Minister in the Karki government. The recommendation was also made, but her name was dropped at the last moment. This was because the fact that she was under investigation in a corruption case being handled by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) came to light. Within a month, the CIAA filed a case against her in the Special Court, accusing her of making false bills in the purchase of a mammography machine and colluding with the contractor to make payments. She quit her old job hoping to become a minister, but she became neither a minister nor did her job remain.

This incident sends a message: a recommendation made without checking a person’s background not only destroys the individual’s career and reputation but also raises a question mark over the competence of the appointing body. If a background check had been done, the situation could have been different.

Another earlier fact is also connected to this—that of Krishn Man Pradhan. The Constitutional Council had recommended him as an Election Commissioner. However, a complaint of sexual violence and abuse was filed against him in the Parliamentary Hearing Committee. Subsequently, the committee prepared to reject his name. And, eventually, Pradhan himself withdrew his name. This exposes the weakness of constitutional appointments. How do such controversial names reach the Council? Why are these complaints not investigated beforehand? This process raises questions not only about the individual’s public life but also about the credibility of the constitutional body.

The Constitution of Nepal provides for a Constitutional Council. The Council includes the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Chief Justice, the Speaker, the National Assembly Chairperson, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Deputy Speaker. This body recommends constitutional officials. So, what is this process like? Members take names out of their ‘pockets’ during the meeting. There is no biodata, no track record, and no background check. This system prioritizes party loyalty and quotas over merit and ethics. As a result, names like Krishn Man Pradhan become controversial. This ‘pocket system’ questions the competence of the Constitutional Council and undermines the trust in democracy.

The Constitution has made parliamentary hearings mandatory. According to the Federal Parliament Joint Committee (Working Procedure) Regulations, 2018, an opinion must be given after conducting a hearing within 45 days of receiving the recommendation. If the time limit expires or if the name is not rejected by a two-thirds majority, the name is automatically approved. This process is merely ritualistic.

Since a two-thirds majority is required to reject a recommendation, even if only a few individuals support the person, their position is saved. The president also does not have the authority to stop a controversial name. This weakness has made the hearing a mere rubber stamp. Such a process provides impunity instead of holding the executive accountable.

The same problem exists in the appointment of judges. The Constitution provides for the Judicial Council to appoint judges in all three levels of courts.

The Council includes the Chief Justice, the Minister of Law, a Senior Judge, a Law Expert, and a Bar Representative. Here too, the game of names from the pocket and bargaining takes place. The background of no appointed judge is checked.

An example of such a distortion is the then-High Court Judge Dr. Navaraj Thapaliya. The Council, led by the then-Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, had appointed him as a judge. After Thapaliya was accused of acting as a middleman, the Judicial Council assigned Supreme Court Justice Til Prasad Shrestha to conduct an inquiry. The report submitted to the Judicial Council by the committee led by Justice Shrestha confirmed that Thapaliya had acted as a middleman. After the accusation was proven, he was dismissed.

And that is not all! The Judicial Council dismissed the then-High Court Judge Renuka Shah from her post three years after her appointment, citing a lack of qualification. The Judicial Council itself had recommended Shah for appointment to the High Court on April 2, 2019, after she had been resolving cases for three years. The Council meeting, chaired by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana, had recommended Shah for appointment. The meeting chaired by Acting Chief Justice Deepak Kumar Karki dismissed her.

Shah is the daughter of former Chief Justice Ramkumar Prasad Shah. A complaint was filed questioning her qualifications. Upon review, it was found that Shah had not completed 10 years of advocacy practice. Shah, who was working at CTEVT, was appointed as a judge even without practicing law. The former chief justice’s father used his power to secure the appointment of his unqualified daughter as a judge.

Even when the judges they appointed were later dismissed for being unqualified, the Judicial Council officials did not have to take any responsibility. The decisions made by individuals who were ineligible for appointment to the post of judge while serving in the High Court received legitimacy.

These incidents have severely damaged the credibility of the appointing bodies due to the lack of background checks. This also affects the individual’s career. When appointments are made based on party self-interest, quota, and loyalty, merit and ethics are overshadowed. This weakens the foundation of democracy.

The recent appointment controversies have highlighted the urgent need to check the background of any official before their appointment, as per the Constitution and laws. A person appointed to a post that receives state services and facilities must be untainted, of good character, ethical, not involved in controversy, qualified, competent, and honest.

When appointments are made solely on the basis of being related to the appointing official, being an activist of their party, or being loyal to them, the appointee’s past raises questions about the decision-making ability of those who appointed them. Therefore, it is now necessary to amend the Constitution and establish a mechanism within the Constitution itself to conduct a background check, qualification check, and criminal track record review by taking the personal details of officials to be appointed by the state before their appointment.

Until the Constitution is amended, making such an arrangement by enacting a federal law will make the appointment process transparent. And qualified, untainted, and competent individuals will be appointed to government bodies.