Last week, Nepal was shaken by an unprecedented groundswell of public anger. This Gen Z-led revolution, fueled by a collective exhaustion with corruption, impunity, and the suffocating grip of political patronage, has sent shock waves through the nation’s establishment. While the movement began as a peaceful uprising for justice and reform, it has been tragically exploited by cynical forces. The most jarring manifestation of this opportunism was the recent burning of the Supreme Court building—an act that was not the work of disillusioned youth but a targeted, strategic assault by criminal syndicates and powerful political operators seeking to obliterate the very documents that tether them to their long-pending crimes.
This is not the time for silence or neutrality. This is the time to stand firmly with Nepal’s judiciary. Not because it is perfect—it is far from it—but because it is still one of the last surviving institutions with the potential to guide Nepal toward a just, transparent, and inclusive future. We must defend the institution even as we demand its reform.
A troubled past, a resilient spirit
To be honest, Nepal’s judiciary is not immune to the diseases of its political system. Over the last two decades, especially since the 2006 political changes, judicial independence has been eroded by the insidious influence of political patronage, opaque appointment processes, and a willingness to occasionally indulge elite impunity. Cases involving politically connected figures have often dragged on for years, remained unresolved, or ended in quiet compromises that defy public trust.
Yet, even amid these systemic weaknesses, the judiciary—particularly the Supreme Court—has managed to pass some of the most progressive and visionary judgments in South Asia. These landmark decisions serve as irrefutable evidence of a living, breathing Constitution and a court capable of rising to the occasion.
Consider the victories:
Citizenship through mothers (2011, 2018): In a region defined by patriarchal laws, the Supreme Court courageously affirmed that children can acquire citizenship through their mothers, a powerful declaration of gender equality.
Sexual and gender minority (SGM) rights (2007): In a judgment that placed Nepal at the vanguard of queer rights, the court recognized the rights of SGM/LGBTI individuals, instructing the government to scrap discriminatory laws and even explore the legal recognition of a third gender.
Right to live with dignity: From safeguarding the rights of Dalits to intervening in bonded labor, the judiciary has consistently emphasized human dignity as a fundamental constitutional right.
Protection of rights during royal rule (2002-2006): Even under direct royal rule, the judiciary often stood as the last bastion of civil liberties, upholding parliamentary processes and offering a space for dissent when all others were suppressed.
These are not small victories. They are proof of a moral compass in a political climate increasingly shaped by short-term populism, power-brokering, and vested interests.
The attacks are strategic, not spontaneous
We must not be distracted by the narrative that links the destruction of court buildings to youthful outrage or the Gen Z protests. While young people rightly call for sweeping reforms, it is not in their interest to burn down the very institutions they want to change. They seek a better system, not chaos. The real threat comes from those who have the most to lose from a functional judiciary: the land mafia, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, war-era criminals, and elite actors with damning evidence lodged within judicial archives. The arson was an act of tactical destruction aimed at obliterating the records of their long-standing crimes.
The fight is not against the concept of justice, but for its preservation. It is possible—and absolutely necessary—to both critique the judiciary’s flaws and fight for its survival. We do not need to defend the status quo to defend the institution itself. The fight should be for a better judiciary, not against its very existence. Let us remember: Justice delayed is justice denied. But justice destroyed is justice extinct.
The judiciary as an architect of the future
As Nepal navigates a rapidly evolving political landscape, the judiciary will soon face a crucial test. The coming challenges will not be about legal literalism but about whether the court can interpret the Constitution through the lens of a new, democratic will.
For instance, should petitions be brought forward challenging the appointment of a new prime minister or the dissolution of Parliament—actions that may have occurred following massive public pressure—the Supreme Court will have a choice to make. Will it follow a rigid, literal interpretation of constitutional provisions? Or will it choose to honor the spirit of the people’s revolution, which demanded these changes in pursuit of clean and transparent governance?
This is where Nepal’s judiciary has the opportunity to become a truly forward-looking institution. By listening to the people while upholding constitutional principles, it can become not just a guardian of law but an architect of the nation’s future.
Pathways to a transparent, accountable nation
If Nepal is to chart a path forward, we must engage in honest judicial reform—not for political convenience, but for the sake of national survival. A truly independent judiciary is the key to breaking free from the cycles of corruption and nepotism that have suffocated our progress.
Transparent appointments: The Judicial Council must adopt a merit-based, fully transparent appointment process. This includes public hearings for all judicial nominees, a permanent ethics panel, and mandatory disclosures of political affiliations or conflicts of interest. By cleaning up its own house, the judiciary can set a powerful precedent for all public appointments, ensuring that competence, not connections, determines who serves the public.
Independent oversight: An external oversight body—separate from the executive and legislature—must be established to monitor judicial ethics, efficiency, and corruption without interfering in judicial decisions. This body would act as an independent watchdog, ensuring accountability and rebuilding public trust.
Time-bound, swift justice: We must create fast-track courts for corruption, human rights violations, and transitional justice cases. These courts would dismantle the "delay tactics" that have long shielded the powerful and signal that no one, no matter how influential, is above the law. By delivering swift justice, the judiciary can become a powerful deterrent against future acts of corruption.
Civic engagement: The judiciary must connect more meaningfully with the public. Public campaigns around legal rights and constitutional provisions can reduce misinformation and enhance trust. The judiciary can also use its authority to enforce citizens' right to information, compelling public bodies to disclose information on government contracts and spending, thereby fostering a culture of open and accountable governance.
The judiciary as the compass
A truly independent judiciary can serve not just as an arbiter of disputes but as a visionary institution that helps define the moral and constitutional character of Nepal. In a time when political parties are losing credibility and when the executive and legislature are increasingly consumed by vested interests, the courts can offer a compass toward equity, accountability, and constitutional order.
Nepal does not need a judiciary that pleases the powerful. It needs a judiciary that protects the powerless. The Supreme Court may be operating from a tent today, but justice is not measured by bricks and mortar. It is measured by courage, integrity, and an unshakable commitment to the people.
Let us rebuild the institution—not just physically, but morally and structurally. Let the courts be transparent, swift, inclusive, and just. Let them be guided not by fear or faction, but by the Constitution and the people’s will.
If we protect our judiciary today, our judiciary will protect our country tomorrow.
