The Supreme Court has issued an interpretation stating that contempt of court cases cannot be registered against judges regarding their judgments or orders.
A division bench of Justices Sharanga Subedi and Meghraj Pokharel ruled that the content of a judge's verdict or order cannot be the subject of contempt. While the order was issued on April 2, the Supreme Court recently released the full text of the decision.
Law student Bibek Chaudhary had filed a contempt petition against high court judges Rishi Rajbhandari and Gopal Prasad Bastola.
Chaudhary argued that the judges committed contempt by delivering a ruling without following binding legal principles established by the Supreme Court.
In its interpretation, the Supreme Court cited various international precedents, stating:
"There is a well-established international jurisprudential principle that contempt of court proceedings generally cannot be initiated against a judge’s verdict or order. This principle is essential for the protection of judicial independence and the rule of law."
The Supreme Court further said that if a party is dissatisfied with a high court decision, they have the legal remedy to appeal to the Supreme Court for a review. However, a contempt petition cannot be registered simply because a party is not satisfied with a ruling, it added.
The court also noted that if a lower court interprets a higher court's precedent differently, it does not amount to contempt.
“It is a well-established principle that differences in the interpretation of a doctrine, or a lower court interpreting a higher court’s precedent differently, does not constitute contempt,” the court said.
Chaudhary had originally filed a writ petition at the Patan High Court seeking to overturn the use of wheel locks by municipal police and traffic police on vehicles, arguing that the practice lacked legal basis. However, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the use of wheel locks cannot be deemed illegal given the limited resources available for traffic management.
Chaudhary then moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the apex court had established principles such as: no body can exercise authority unless explicitly authorized by law, and every state body must operate within the framework of law. He claimed that the high court judges had committed contempt by deliberately disregarding these principles.
