Although an independent judiciary is considered a cornerstone of democratic governance, there are countless examples around the world where political powers have attempted to influence courts. History is full of instances in which governments interfered in the judiciary through judicial appointments, restructuring courts, impeachment proceedings, constitutional amendments, or direct political pressure. In many cases, powerful governments elected through democratic systems have sought to bend the judiciary to serve their own interests.

The latest example of such interference can arguably be seen in Nepal, where the government of Balen Shah, which is politically close to a near two-thirds majority, bypassed seniority without clear justification and recommended Manoj Kumar Sharma as Chief Justice. By any objective standard, Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and Dr. Manoj Sharma are not comparable in terms of capability, judicial contribution, or public standing.

The government claimed that Dr. Sharma was recommended on the basis of performance evaluation and administrative competence. However, critics argue that the recommendation relied on misleading data and an unfair assessment process that violated the long-established principle of seniority. The controversy that followed has sparked concerns that Nepal’s democratic system itself could be at risk.

In recent months, the actions of the current government have increasingly raised questions about accountability and authoritarian tendencies. Many observers see this latest judicial appointment as another attempt to bring the judiciary under political influence.

The struggle between the executive and the judiciary is not new in democratic systems. Examples from around the world show that when judicial independence is weakened, democracy and civil liberties also suffer.

In United States, Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As a result, both Democrats and Republicans have historically tried to shape the ideological direction of the court. One of the most famous examples occurred in 1937, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the “Court Packing Plan” after the Supreme Court obstructed key elements of his policies. Although the plan ultimately failed, it remains a historic example of political pressure on the judiciary.

In recent years, political polarization surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court has intensified over issues such as abortion rights, elections, and presidential authority.

Similarly, in Pakistan, tensions between the military and judiciary have long been controversial. Military rulers repeatedly sought legitimacy from the courts. In 2007, then-President Pervez Musharraf suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, triggering nationwide protests. The incident is widely regarded as a blatant attack on judicial independence.

In Turkey, after the failed coup attempt in 2016, the government led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan dismissed thousands of judges and prosecutors. While the government accused them of involvement in the coup attempt, human rights organizations criticized the move as an effort to consolidate political control over the judiciary.

Likewise, in Poland, the government faced serious disputes with the European Union after attempting to lower the retirement age of Supreme Court judges and increase political influence in judicial appointments. European courts ruled that such actions undermined judicial independence.

In neighboring India, disputes between the executive and the Supreme Court over the “collegium system” of judicial appointments have persisted for years. Governments have sought a greater role in appointments, while the judiciary has defended its institutional autonomy.

Nepal has also experienced repeated controversies regarding the appointment of chief justices, impeachment motions, constitutional council decisions, and judicial selection processes. However, critics argue that the current controversy — bypassing seniority while citing questionable performance evaluations — has pushed the judicial sector into an unprecedented crisis.

From any perspective — performance, legal scholarship, leadership, or judicial contribution — Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla stands out among current Supreme Court justices. Since her years as a legal advocate, she has played a major role in reforming discriminatory laws and advancing the rights of marginalized communities. Nationally and internationally recognized, she is widely regarded as one of Nepal’s most accomplished legal minds.

The government nevertheless insists that Dr. Manoj Sharma was recommended on the basis of administrative capacity and leadership competence. Yet critics note that no transparent criteria or comparative evaluation has been made public.

Legal experts argue that bypassing Sapana Pradhan Malla is not merely an issue of an individual appointment, but a sensitive matter tied to judicial independence and the principle of separation of powers. According to them, if the tradition of seniority is to be broken, there must be a clear constitutional and institutional justification. Otherwise, suspicions of political interference naturally grow stronger.

Many constitutional scholars and lawyers now interpret the government’s refusal to appoint the senior-most Supreme Court justice as direct interference in the judiciary and a challenge to established democratic norms.

Nepal’s Constitution recognizes qualification, competence, and recommendation by the Constitutional Council as the basis for appointing a Chief Justice. However, in practice, seniority has long remained an important and respected convention. In such a context, sidelining Sapana Pradhan Malla and promoting another candidate sends the message that the government seeks to place a politically favorable figure in the judiciary.

According to legal scholars, Nepal — like many other countries — faces the challenge of protecting the judiciary from political influence in order to preserve democratic stability. Analysts warn that when judicial independence weakens, public trust in the constitution, civil liberties, and state institutions also deteriorates.

The government’s recent actions, including what critics describe as legally questionable decisions, pressure tactics, interference in judicial processes, and destabilizing economic policies, have contributed to an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

Political interference in Nepal’s judiciary is not a new phenomenon. Since the Rana regime, centralized power structures prevented courts from functioning independently. Even after political changes and democratic movements, the judiciary has repeatedly faced interference and attacks.

Historical analysis suggests that organized political intervention in Nepal’s judiciary intensified particularly after 2002. During the Rana era (1846–1951), executive, legislative, and judicial powers were all concentrated in the hands of the Rana rulers. Later, after King Mahendra dissolved the elected government in 1960, the Panchayat system also maintained strong royal influence over the judiciary.

After the 1990 People’s Movement restored multiparty democracy, the Supreme Court began playing a more active role in constitutional interpretation and protection of civil rights. Yet political instability and power struggles prevented the judiciary from becoming fully independent.

Following the royal massacre and especially during King Gyanendra’s direct rule, interference in judicial appointments and constitutional bodies reportedly intensified. Even after the establishment of a republic in 2006, controversies surrounding chief justice appointments, impeachment politics, constitutional council decisions, and allegations of “setting culture” within the judiciary continued to raise concerns.

The impeachment motion filed against Sushila Karki in 2017 was also widely viewed as political pressure against the judiciary.

Legal scholars emphasize that an independent judiciary is essential for a healthy democracy. However, conflicts between political power centers, constitutional appointments, and judicial leadership continue to undermine public confidence in Nepal’s courts.

Experts argue that protecting judicial independence requires transparent constitutional institutions, reform of judicial appointments, and insulation from political influence.

Nepal’s judiciary has increasingly become a victim of political interference over the past decade. Critics say the latest recommendation of a Chief Justice based on disputed evaluations and the violation of seniority norms has created fear that dark clouds may be gathering over Nepal’s democracy.

The government’s reliance on its overwhelming political strength while disregarding judicial traditions and constitutional morality has deepened concerns about the future of judicial independence, separation of powers, and democratic governance.

Sapana Pradhan Malla, who earned international recognition for Nepal and studied at Harvard University, has devoted her career to reforming discriminatory laws and supporting countless marginalized citizens. Many observers believe the state has committed a grave injustice against a highly capable and compassionate figure who dedicated her life to public service.

Critics argue that this decision sets a dangerous precedent — suggesting that merit and competence no longer matter in Nepal, and that favoritism and political loyalty may once again prevail.

In a deeply patriarchal society like Nepal’s, many believe this decision also represents an injustice against women. Sapana Pradhan Malla achieved her position through decades of struggle, sacrifice, humiliation, and perseverance. To many, the attempt to sideline her reflects fear of a strong and accomplished woman who rose despite systemic discrimination.

This episode, critics say, will be remembered in history as an irrational decision by the state — one that contradicted the principles of equality, justice, and democratic accountability that political leaders so often claim to defend.