The Nepal Bar Association (NBA) staged a sit-in protest against Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Jabra at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Addressing the gathering, Bar Chairman Chandeshwar Shrestha accused Chief Justice Jabra of being a ‘mediator’. Conversation with Bar Chairman Shrestha in this regard:
You have accused the Chief Justice of being a mediator. On what basis did you say that?
The names of some middlemen were mentioned in the market and it was rumored that they had an affair with him. In February 2076, I met him and asked him to stop this kind of activity. I told you to stop mediators, don’t mess with the appointment of judges. No matter how much he requested, he did not seem to give up his relationship with the middleman.
The report was submitted to stop the inconsistency of the judiciary. The report pointed out various problems and suggested that the leadership should improve. After submitting the report on July 29, he directed to implement the practice in the High Court. He said that the round robin will be implemented in the Supreme Court from September 3. But he did not implement it.
Is it possible to be called the leader of the middlemen only on the basis of non-implementation of the round system?
Even if I implement it in the Bench-Bar Coordination Committee from mid-October, it will not be implemented. However, the report cannot be applied to the Chief Justices of the High Courts across the country at any event held at the National Judicial Academy. I was not consulted while preparing the report, I cannot implement. You do your own thing, I have fallen.
Talking like this is like being under the influence of a middleman. On the one hand, we show inconsistencies, on the other hand, the fear that the influence of the intermediaries will be removed if we go to the round, what he said means that he could not get rid of the influence of the intermediaries.
Isn’t this just a guess?
In the year 2076, I have accused him of mediating against you. I told him to get better now. In relation to the name he came up with, the relationship with him is not now, it is very old. He laughed that now the share has been divided. I have to think again, I told you tomorrow you will have a problem.
After Anshabanda, his brother’s name comes up, doesn’t it? Because others do not share
Why not name clearly?
Coming to many. According to the report given yesterday, if the mechanism is formed, the name will come. As soon as the mechanism works, the names of the intermediaries become public.
The bar itself may have studied this, didn’t it?
In the report given by the committee headed by Justice Harikrishna Karki, it has been written that the task of forming the mechanism falls within the judiciary. If they don’t, the bar can do some homework tomorrow.
After making such a serious allegation, how will he go to debate in the sitting tomorrow and he will sit in the sitting?
We have clearly warned him not to sit in the sitting. Because, as he is a disputed person, the question and suspicion of the mediator will remain even when he goes to the appointed session. We, the legal defendants, also doubted whether justice would be served by the court appointed by him. Therefore, we have urged the legal practitioners not to allow him to sit in the court and not to be present in his court.
After you have said this, will it be difficult for other judges to sit in the bench appointed by him?
That is why he has appointed a bench and other judges have asked him not to sit in the sitting.
So Bar’s conclusion is that the Chief Justice is under the influence of a middleman?
This is a topic we have repeatedly discussed. This is the conclusion of our discussion. However, discussions and conclusions have not been drawn in such a way that Yoyo is a mediator by making the agenda. The conclusion is that the influence of the middlemen is on the judicial leadership.