Supreme Court Administration Rejects Three Petitions Against Justice Sharma's Recommendation

Kathmandu. Three petitions questioning the Constitutional Council's decision to recommend Justice Dr. Manoj Sharma as the Chief Justice were rejected by the Supreme Court administration.

The Constitutional Council recommended Justice Sharma, who was fourth in seniority, from among the six names sent by the Judicial Council, prompting Tripathi to file a petition arguing that this disregarded judicial tradition and past practice.

The petition, registered on Baisakh 25, was followed by the Supreme Court administration issuing a certified copy of the rejection on the 28th. Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi's subsequent petition against this rejection has not been registered.

The Constitutional Council's recommendation of a fourth-ranked justice for Chief Justice, instead of the most senior judge, was seen as a violation of the constitutional spirit, tradition, and judicial practice, leading Tripathi to submit a writ petition to the Supreme Court administration.

'After the Supreme Court administration rejected the writ, the petitioner can file another petition in the single bench of the same court. However, Tripathi's petition has not been registered. The Supreme Court administration has held onto the writ for a long time with the intention of not registering it,' Tripathi told Ratopati. 'They haven't provided a reason for the delay, and court staff say the writ cannot be registered without instructions from above. This is not a matter of discussion on whether to register the petition or not; it is for the bench to decide whether the petition will be registered or not.'

Why did the Supreme Court administration reject Tripathi's petition?

Supreme Court Registrar Man Bahadur Karki rejected the writ petitions filed by Tripathi and others. He raised the issue that although the writ petition was filed as a matter of public interest, it did not specify which fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated.

Registrar Karki refused to register the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had not submitted any documents to substantiate the claims and had not completed the process for filing a public interest case.

He stated in the order, 'The present petition cannot be registered. It has been rejected as per Rule 18(2) of the Supreme Court Regulations, 2074 (2017 AD),' citing that the petitioner sought to approach the court through a writ without completing any procedures, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.