Supreme Court Rules Judicial Error Not Contempt

Kathmandu. The Supreme Court has ruled that a contempt of court case cannot be filed solely on the basis of disagreement with a decision or legal interpretation made by a high court judge.  

A joint bench of Judges Sharda Subedi and Meghraj Pokharel ruled that the contempt of court petition sought to be registered against High Court Patan Judge Rishiraj Bhandari and others was not maintainable.

Student Vivek Chaudhary, studying at Tribhuvan University's Nepal Law Campus, had filed a writ petition at the High Court claiming that the traffic police's 'wheel lock' action was illegal. However, the High Court had dismissed the writ, interpreting that the act of 'wheel locking' was inherent within the authority to punish under Section 164(1)(b) of the Vehicle and Transport Management Act, 2049.

Claiming that the High Court's decision violated various precedents established by the Supreme Court and ridiculed the rule of law, Chaudhary had filed a petition at the Supreme Court seeking to file a contempt case against the judges themselves.

The Supreme Court stated that judicial error and contempt are different matters: if a judge makes an error in legal interpretation or application of precedent, the path to appeal or review in a higher court remains open. Therefore, such 'judicial error' cannot be considered 'contempt of court'.  

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not appropriate to file a contempt of court case unless it is proven that the judges intentionally intended to insult the court or obstruct the judicial process.  Judges should be able to make decisions fearlessly based on their understanding of the law and their conscience.

The court has determined that if contempt cases are filed based solely on decisions, judges will be under pressure, and judicial independence will be destroyed.