KATHMANDU: A sharp disagreement has emerged in the Parliamentary Hearing Committee over whether the hearing process of proposed Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma should be completed today or allowed more time for study and deliberation.

Ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmakers pushed for an immediate continuation of the process, insisting that complaints should be heard and discussions on Sharma’s action plan concluded without delay.

RSP Chief Whip Kabindra Burlakoti said he had already reviewed several complaints and argued that the committee should proceed with hearings and discussions the same day, taking additional time only if absolutely necessary. He stressed that the process should not be unnecessarily delayed.

RSP lawmaker Madhu Chaulagain also said that since complaints had already been received, the committee should move forward.

Another RSP member, Rajib Khatri, urged that the process be taken forward in a “fast-track” manner, suggesting that direct interaction and cross-questioning could speed up decision-making.

On the other hand, opposition lawmakers called for more time, warning against rushing the process.

Nepali Communist Party lawmaker Barshaman Pun said decisions should not be made in haste and stressed the need for proper study of both complaints and the proposed Chief Justice’s action plan before proceeding further.

CPN (UML) lawmaker Padma Aryal also raised concerns over transparency, arguing that rushing through such an important process in a single day could undermine the committee’s credibility. She suggested dividing the process into stages—study, discussion, and hearing—over multiple days.

Committee member Prem Prasad Dangol also requested time for reviewing the documents, while Nar Bahadur Bista sarcastically suggested renaming the committee the “Approval Committee,” reflecting dissatisfaction with the pace of proceedings.

Committee Chair Bodh Narayan Shrestha clarified that the process allows for questioning after hearing complaints and urged members not to rush toward conclusions prematurely, noting that both approval and rejection remain possible outcomes.