Dr. Manoj Sharma Faces Scrutiny in Parliamentary Hearing for Chief Justice Nomination

Kathmandu. Dr. Manoj Sharma, who was approved as the Chief Justice by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee, gave weak answers to the questions posed by the parliamentarians during the hearing. Sharma's parliamentary hearing was held at Singh Durbar on Tuesday afternoon. Although he was unanimously approved as the Chief Justice from the hearing, he gave haphazard answers to the parliamentarians' questions.

Sixteen complaints were filed against Dr. Sharma in the hearing committee, and the parliamentarians asked questions based on these complaints. Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP) MPs Deepak Bohora, Rajiv Khatri, Madhu Chaulagain, and Kabhindra Burla Koti asked questions. UML's Prem Prasad Dahal, Padma Aryal, and Nar Bahadur Bishwakarma also asked questions.

The parliamentarians asked Dr. Sharma questions about the Ncell tax penalty dispute, bar-bench conflict, why writ petitions were registered and rejected, seniority disputes, Nepobaby, PhD thesis, and plans to stop corruption and middlemen. Similarly, questions about transitional justice were asked by Nepali Communist Party MP Barshaman Pun and RSP MP Kabhindra Burla Koti. In response to these questions, Sharma stated that he would not answer as the cases are sub judice in the court.

He said, 'The case related to transitional justice is sub judice in the court. I may have to make a decision on this myself. A decision must be made at that time. Therefore, it is not appropriate to answer here.' Similarly, regarding the Ncell tax penalty dispute, Dr. Sharma said that it would not be appropriate to defend the verdict. However, he stated that it was his duty to clarify when the issue was raised as a complaint in the committee.

'In the Ncell case, two types of taxes and penalties were involved. Under Section 120 (a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act, there is a provision for severe penalties and even imprisonment under 'criminal liability' for submitting false statements or evading tax,' said Dr. Sharma, responding to the parliamentarians' questions.

He stated that it is necessary to check whether false statements were submitted at the time of the verdict. He said that since Ncell itself had not submitted any false statements or evaded tax, only the penalty under criminal liability (a percentage of the total amount) was removed in accordance with the law and established judicial principles.

Regarding the bar-bench conflict, Dr. Sharma gave a casual answer, saying there was no conflict. He stated that the atmosphere between the court administration and the bar appeared to be one of misunderstanding.

On the question of why writ petitions were registered and rejected, he said that the allegation of stopping writ registration or rejection through oral orders was not entirely true. Sharma stated that the work of registering or rejecting writs is purely administrative, and the Chief Registrar and registrars are fully independent in using their discretion.

He stated that he does not interfere in matters falling under the jurisdiction of judicial administration.

On the question of seniority being violated, Dr. Sharma stated that the constitution interprets the position of Chief Justice as an 'appointment' rather than a 'promotion', and therefore seniority alone cannot be the sole strong basis. He said he would not comment further on this matter.

On the question about Nepobaby, Sharma said that he reached the Supreme Court from the then Appellate Court based on merit and ability, not due to any family ties. He stated that there is no legal or judicial recognition anywhere that a person is disqualified for a position due to family ties, and that people have only formed an opinion about this.

Sharma stated that the claims that a professor from Law Campus wrote his PhD thesis and that he received 70 lakh rupees from Cholendra Shumsher's nephew and returned the money after losing the case were completely baseless and fabricated. He said that these issues were brought out to tarnish his reputation.