Does it end here? Is decision against Mr. Lokman Singh Karki an end in itself?

The Context

The Supreme Court of Nepal on Sunday (*8th January 2017) adjudicated that, Lok Man Singh Karki did not meet qualifications required to hold the position of the Chief of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA). The decision immediately removes Mr. Karki from the position of head of the anti-corruption constitutional body of Nepal.

The Positive

i) The Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment is much controversial writ petition. This judgment is a reminder that no-one (even the head of constitutional body) is above the law. This case had its twist and turns from despatching notice to in court defamation attempt. However, at the end, this case gave the positive decision and upheld the rule of law. This decision has been applauded by many and obviously will further public trust in the judiciary.

ii) The applicant Advocate Om Prakash Aryal has been exemplary figure and has reaffirmed that lawyers are not merely "hired guns". They can play constructive role rectify what has gone wrong and restore rule of law. He deserves big appreciation for his persistence, handwork, and professionalism.

iii) The role of justices of the Supreme Court has been very praiseworthy in this case. The Court took its time but did the rights thing. This Case in days to come will be referred to while discussing the 'independence of judiciary' in Nepal.

The Concerns

i) Now it is settled that Mr. Karki was not eligible to be appointed as head of CIAA. Are those appointing him are in question now? or it is the end of the entire plot? I personally feel that those who had an active role in appointment Mr. Karki have now have an obligation to answer, on what basis was he appointed? Was it an honest mistake and can be rectified with a meaningful apology? or is digging deeper necessary to hold those responsible for "ineligible appointment" accountable?

ii) This case reflects the tendency of appointment culture in Nepal. So, as this appointment fails the rule of law test, how many other appointments might have a similar fate? There are other controversies surrounding the appointment under political influence.

iii) Is this case the starting of accountability questioning or will this be the end in itself as this high profile case is settled now? Will legal fraternity, government, public, and other institution consider this case as a starting point towards accountability and rule of law?

Blessing in disguise for Mr. Karki

As there was ( a high) possibility of Mr. Karki being impeached by the parliament, I consider this decision as "blessing in disguise" of him.

i) Mr. Karki is deemed ineligible to have been appointed as the head of CIAA. It is not his mistakes or doing that removes him from the position. Technically, he did not fail the test, those appointed him are under scrutiny and are responsible for blunder (logically).

ii) Had he been removed via Impeachment procedure it would have been Mr. Karki's doing. He would have been the person responsible for his dismissal from the position of the head of the constitutional body. That is quite some burden to carry with you but to Mr. Karki's rescue, the Supreme Court gave the order. The decision is not a favorable one for Mr. Karki but it has done a huge favor for him.

iii) Further, the Court has saved many politicians who were in shaky position in the question of impeachment of Mr. Karki. They must be the biggest winners here and must have had a sigh of relief that they do not have to take a stand in the matter now.


The Supreme Court and all those involved in the case deserve the appreciation for a landmark judgment. However, I personally feel the decision has raised a new question; How can those appointing an ineligible person in the head of CIAA hold accountable for their doing?
Those appointing Mr. Karki are responsible for what they did ?  or will we be satisfied with the dismissal of Mr. Karki. The appointment of Mr. Karki was "bi-product" not the "cause". We need to identify the cause and address the cause or we will spend our energy dealing with bi-product and never get anywhere.