The tussle between the Bar and the Bench over the nominations of justices has escalated with the Supreme Court administration filing a contempt of court case against Nepal Bar Association (NBA) President Gopal Krishna Ghimire for criticising the selection process.

A contempt of court petition was registered at the top court on Monday evening with the approval of registrar Bhadrakali Pokharel. Deputy registrar Govinda Ghimre filed it at the court demanding legal action against the NBA president.

The court administration pressed ahead with the case following the conclusion of the court’s full bench that legal action against Ghimire was necessary. The full bench led by Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha and attended by all Supreme Court justices, deliberated for two hours on Monday afternoon.

However, the petition is unlikely to be heard immediately to avoid further intensifying the dispute. “There is a slim chance of a hearing this week as the court has only two days left before the Dashain holidays,” said an official at the court. The Dashain holidays will begin on Thursday, and the chief justice will retire before the court resumes.

On September 27, the Judicial Council had nominated two high court chief judges as Supreme Court justices while lawyers were staging sit-in on the council premises, protesting against the nominations. Ghimire, the NBA president, had citicised the nominations, accusing the council of selecting the two judges in exchange for money.

“The manner in which the nominations were made clearly shows there have been financial dealings,” he had told the Post. He had made similar statements in other public forums.

Holding a press meet on Tuesday, Ghimire said the contempt case was not just against him but the entire legal community. “The entire Bar Association stands united to face this case,” he said. “I haven’t made any statements to undermine the dignity of the respected court. My remarks were directed at the chief justice as chairperson of the Judicial Council, which made an illegal decision to appoint these justices.”

The five-member Judicial Council led by the chief justice nominates judges and justices. The council includes the law minister, the senior-most Supreme Court justice, and two advocates—one each picked by the association and the government.

The association has been staging regular protests since the council revised its regulations in September last year, adjusting the judges’ rankings. According to the amendment published in the Nepal Gazette on September 20 on the same year, the chief registrar of the Supreme Court or the council secretary, if appointed as a high court judge, would be ranked immediately below the chief judge of the high court.

The association has demanded the provision be revoked, describing it as regressive, biased, discriminatory, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and arguing that it contradicts the principles established by Supreme Court’s verdicts. It claims that the amended regulations unfairly demote judges appointed from among lawyers, placing them below career judges in the hierarchy.

In response to the protests, the judiciary’s leadership constituted a five-member committee on September 2 to settle the matter through dialogue. Prakash Man Singh Raut, the senior-most justice of the Supreme Court, led the committee.

The committee, however, failed to reach a compromise as the lawyers’ umbrella body stood firm in its demand to revert the changes.

Ram Prasad Bhandari, a member of the council; Ghimire, the NBA president; Anjita Khanal, general secretary of the NBA; and Yam Bahadur Budha, secretary at the council, were members of the panel.

The Raut-led panel failed to resolve the dispute. Raut and Bhandari disagreed with the association’s demand to revoke the amendment, while Budha remained neutral. As a result, two separate reports were presented to Shrestha—one from the Raut-led faction, another by Ghimire and Khanal. The NBA had been regularly staging protests until September 27 until the justices were nominated.

Experts following the dispute say the issue could have been sorted out without resorting to litigation. “There was no need for the judiciary to register contempt of court petitions abruptly,” Bala Ram KC, a former Supreme Court justice, told the Post. “The court could have summoned Ghimire and sorted out the matter.”

He added that by indulging in a conflict with the lawyer’s forum, the Supreme Court has only degraded public trust in the judiciary. “This is clearly an issue of egos. The tussle between the two organisations associated with the judicial system will only harm the judiciary,” he said.