Concerns Raised Over Transparency in Chief Justice Hearing

Kathmandu. Opposition lawmakers have expressed dissatisfaction, claiming that the hearing process on the proposed Chief Justice's action plan and the complaints filed against them is being rushed through.

In Tuesday's meeting of the Parliamentary Hearing Committee, opposition members voiced their discontent, stating that they were not given sufficient time to study the complaints and that the hearing was being hurried without completing the necessary procedures.

During the meeting, CPN (Maoist Centre) leader and committee member Barshaman Pun expressed that the hearing should only proceed after completing the proper procedures. He emphasized that the action plan and commitments of an individual who would serve as Chief Justice for six years must be studied seriously.

He said, "The distribution of the proposed Chief Justice's action plan and commitments was discussed in the informal meeting itself. We are not just sitting here to dissent from the decisions made by the executive. Therefore, let us complete the process as well. Let us not delay the work too much either. Whether it happens today or tomorrow, let us have some discussion and study. The Chief Justice will remain for six years. They have to work from the current government to the next government, so their action plan must also be good. Let us study this very well."

He also expressed suspicion that the committee chairperson might be facing pressure, seeing the rush in decision-making. Similarly, CPN UML leader and committee member Padma Aryal stated that trying to wrap up the entire process in a single day without any discussion would raise questions about the dignity of the committee and lack transparency.

She questioned the chairperson about what kind of situation had arisen that necessitated wrapping up everything today in such a rush. She said, "Complaints are received today. After receiving them, we voice our opinions on them. We should move forward with a decision according to the established procedure. If expressing one's perspective is considered as opposition, that is a different matter; otherwise, I believe this is our responsibility. 

My question to the chairperson is, what circumstances arose before you that required everything to be settled today in such a big hurry? We need time to listen to the complainants and to understand the matter ourselves. Rushing makes things non-transparent and raises questions about the dignity of the committee."