Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki’s Expedited Approach Sparks Constitutional Debate

In an unprecedented move that has sent ripples through Nepal’s judicial landscape, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Sushila Karki’s appointment as interim leader has ignited a fierce constitutional debate. Her emphasis on expediting legal processes has drawn both praise for efficiency and criticism from legal scholars who question the constitutional foundations of her approach. The controversy highlights the delicate balance between judicial expediency and constitutional adherence in a nation still navigating its democratic institutions.

A Trailblazer’s Controversial Return to the Spotlight

Justice Karki, who made history as Nepal’s first female Chief Justice when she served from 2016 to 2017, has never shied away from challenging the status quo. Her appointment as interim leader comes at a critical juncture when the judicial system faces mounting backlogs and public trust in legal institutions wavers. “The judiciary’s primary responsibility is to deliver justice without delay,” Karki stated during her first address after assuming the interim position. “When justice is delayed, it is effectively denied.”

Her reputation as a no-nonsense jurist who battled corruption during her Supreme Court tenure preceded her return to public service. Known for her landmark rulings that strengthened accountability in government institutions, Karki’s appointment initially received widespread support from reform advocates and civil society organizations. The Alliance for Judicial Transparency, a prominent legal watchdog group, initially welcomed her leadership, noting that “Justice Karki’s commitment to efficient judicial processes could revitalize public confidence in the system.”

However, her accelerated approach to judicial reform has quickly become a lightning rod for criticism. Within weeks of her appointment, Karki implemented a series of procedural changes designed to expedite case processing—reducing deliberation periods, limiting certain types of appeals, and restructuring administrative protocols. These changes reduced the average case resolution time by nearly 40 percent in pilot jurisdictions, according to preliminary data from the Judicial Administration Research Center.

Constitutional Scholars Sound the Alarm

The swift implementation of Karki’s efficiency measures has prompted serious constitutional concerns among legal experts. A coalition of constitutional scholars, led by former Supreme Court Justice Balaram K.C., has published a comprehensive analysis arguing that several of Karki’s procedural reforms circumvent constitutional requirements for judicial process changes.

“While efficiency is certainly a worthy goal, it cannot come at the expense of constitutional integrity,” Justice K.C. explained during a recent legal symposium at Tribhuvan University Law Campus. “The interim leadership has implemented sweeping changes without following the procedural safeguards established in Articles 126 and 128 of our Constitution, which require judicial council consultation and legislative oversight for structural reforms.”

The constitutional critique centers on three main arguments. First, critics contend that Karki’s interim status does not grant her the authority to implement permanent structural changes to judicial procedures. Second, they argue that several of her expedited processes reduce essential deliberative safeguards that protect due process rights. Finally, legal scholars point out that the Constitution explicitly requires consultation with multiple branches of government before implementing systemic judicial reforms.

Professor Meera Dhungana, a constitutional law expert at Nepal Law Campus, elaborated on these concerns: “The Constitution creates intentional friction in the process of judicial reform precisely to prevent unilateral changes, even well-intentioned ones. Justice Karki’s accelerated approach, while potentially beneficial in outcomes, sets a dangerous precedent of procedural shortcuts that undermine constitutional governance.”

The Efficiency-Due Process Dilemma

At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental tension in judicial philosophy: the balance between efficiency and due process. Karki’s defenders argue that Nepal’s judicial system has been plagued by unnecessary delays that effectively deny justice to thousands of citizens waiting years for resolution of their cases. According to the National Judicial Council’s annual report, over 300,000 cases remain pending across Nepal’s courts, with an average resolution time exceeding three years—statistics Karki frequently cites to justify her expedited approach.

“Process for process’s sake is not justice,” Karki stated during a recent press conference addressing the criticism. “When citizens wait years for basic legal resolutions, their fundamental rights are being violated by bureaucratic inertia. The Constitution was not designed to enshrine delay but to protect substantive rights.”

Her defenders point to tangible results already emerging from the accelerated procedures. In districts where Karki’s reforms have been implemented, case clearance rates have improved dramatically. The Kathmandu District Court, which piloted several of the new procedures, reported clearing its backlog of property disputes by 62 percent within three months. Moreover, litigant satisfaction surveys conducted by the independent Center for Legal Research show a 58 percent approval rating for the faster procedures among those who have experienced them.

Ramesh Sharma, who waited four years for resolution of a land dispute before receiving a judgment under the new expedited system, represents the beneficiaries of Karki’s approach. “For years, I watched my case get postponed month after month,” Sharma said. “Under the new procedures, I finally received a hearing and resolution within three months. For ordinary citizens, this speed feels like justice finally working.”

Broader Implications for Nepal’s Judicial Independence

This controversy transcends procedural debates, touching on fundamental questions about judicial independence and the separation of powers in Nepal’s evolving democracy. Since the adoption of the 2015 Constitution following years of political instability, Nepal has struggled to balance efficient governance with democratic checks and balances.

Political analyst Deepak Adhikari sees the Karki controversy as emblematic of this broader tension: “Nepal’s institutions are still finding their footing after decades of political turbulence. The debate around Justice Karki’s reforms reflects our ongoing national conversation about whether efficiency or process should take precedence in governance.”

The dispute has drawn attention from international legal organizations as well. The International Commission of Jurists released a statement emphasizing that “while judicial efficiency is a worthy goal, it must be pursued within constitutional parameters. Procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential protections for judicial independence and due process.”

This international scrutiny comes at a sensitive time for Nepal, which has been working to strengthen its democratic credentials and judicial independence on the global stage. Foreign donors supporting judicial reform programs in Nepal have expressed concern about the constitutional questions raised, with several indicating they are monitoring the situation closely.

A Path Forward: Balancing Speed with Constitutional Integrity

As the constitutional debate intensifies, moderate voices are emerging with proposals to preserve Karki’s efficiency gains while addressing constitutional concerns. The Nepal Bar Association has proposed a compromise framework that would categorize Karki’s reforms into temporary administrative measures (which fall within her interim authority) and structural changes (which would require fuller constitutional processes).

“There is a middle path that honors both the need for judicial efficiency and constitutional integrity,” explained Sabin Shrestha, President of the Nepal Bar Association. “Some of Justice Karki’s innovations could be implemented immediately as pilot programs while the more fundamental changes undergo proper constitutional review.”

Justice Karki herself has recently signaled openness to this approach, announcing the formation of a Constitutional Compliance Review Committee to evaluate which of her reforms require additional procedural steps. “My goal has always been substantive justice for the Nepali people,” she stated. “If achieving that goal requires additional consultation to ensure constitutional compliance, I welcome that process.”

The controversy surrounding Justice Karki’s expedited judicial approach ultimately reflects a nation grappling with how to modernize its institutions while honoring constitutional principles. As Nepal continues its democratic journey, this debate may set important precedents for how reform initiatives balance urgency with constitutional process. What remains clear is that for a nation still establishing its democratic foundations, the methods of reform can be as important as the reforms themselves.

For citizens like Ramesh Sharma, who finally received justice after years of waiting, and constitutional scholars concerned about procedural integrity, the resolution of this controversy will shape not just individual cases but the very foundation of Nepal’s justice system for years to come.