Cholendra Shumsher Rana has defended his controversial verdicts including ruling the game of marriage (cards) to be a mental game and not gambling while he was at the Biratnagar Appellate Court during the parliamentary hearing on Tuesday.
"The justice had made legal interpretation in that case on the basis of Gambling Act. The verdict had said the game of cards cannot be defined as gambling. The journalists defined marriage as a mental and entertaining game not the verdict," Rana claimed during the hearing at Singha Durbar.
Rana said the citizens have many complaints and curiosities about the judiciary and claimed that his action plan will address them. "I take all the complaints against me with a clean heart. This has given me an opportunity to improve," he stated during the hearing.
Responding to the accusation that he registered a pond at Chhapkaiya of Birgunj in the name of his relative he claimed the person had receipts of land revenues paid for that land. "The verdict was given on that basis. There is no bad intention or misconduct in the case," he argued.
He has also defended the order he gave on the case of ownership of the land received in dowry by the then king Gyanendra Shah's daughter Prerana Rajya Laxmi Singh. The then CJ Ram Kumar Shah and justice Rana had ruled that ownership of the land owned by former king Birendra should remain with Singh as she had received it in dowry from Birendra's brother Gyanendra.
"There is no dispute about the fact that Prerana received dowry. But all the assets of the then king have been transferred to Nepal Trust after the country became a republic. The case is currently being seen by the constitutional bench," he added.
The then Supreme Court (SC) justice Sushila Karki had commented there was judicial deviation in Rana's verdict of giving a clean chit in the corruption case of former minister Jaya Prakash Gupta. Rana pointed that the Judicial Council has already probed on Karki's comment and given a clean chit to him.
He also defended the allegations about giving verdicts in favor of casinos. "Casino regulation was formulated before the act. The case is currently under the constitutional bench," he said.
He also refuted the allegations that he entered the court through blackmail. "Questions were asked about date of birth of the then SC justice Surendra Singh. I did not file the case. I was just a writ petitioner on behalf of another person. I didn't come by blackmailing Surendra Singh. I was appointed due to my qualification. This allegation has pinched my heart. I must be cleared of it."
He clarified that he boycotted the bench of the then CJ Gopal Parajuli to save the prestige of judiciary and public faith on judiciary. "Gopal Parajuli was my class mate. I knew he had two dates of birth from earlier times. He showed all the documents before the hearing on the second day. There was a third date of birth in those documents. We asked him to resign. I refused to stay on the bench to save the prestige of judiciary and public faith on judiciary," he explained. "Parajuli resigned a few days after my decision. The term boycott of bench was given by journalists."
He expressed commitment to make the judiciary inclusive and assured that he will not blot his image while serving as the CJ.
