By PR Pradhan
These days, a section of the media, known to be close to the West, or say funded by some of the Western countries, is trying to project ex-chief justice of the Supreme Court as a hero. Similarly, the very section of media is projecting Ranju Darshana, a young lady who contested for the post of mayor of Kathmandu Metropolis, like a hero. These are the indications how far the Westerners have become active in Nepal! Nevertheless, questions arise whether Karki or Darshana are the real heroes or are they just serving the Western interests?
It is not odd, the Bibeksheel Nepali is a pro-West political party which believes in secularism for the sake of campaigning/protecting Christianity; federalism for the sake of intensifying communalism in the Nepali society and republicanism for the sake of destroying the traditional identity of this country. The Bibeksheel Nepali Party and Shajha Party had contributed a lot on the defeat of NC’s mayor candidate and victory of the UML candidate in Kathmandu. The West funded NGOs were active in the election campaign of Darshana. One Online news portal even reported about Darshana’s dress code during the election period. When she appeared in a traditional saree at the oath-taking ceremony of the Kathmandu mayor, the news portal made a big story. We are talking about Indian micro-management in Nepal but how westerners are being mobilized in a silent manner, perhaps, we have not thought about them.
Talking about Sushila Karki, she is a most controversial lady. When some west-funded media have started to project her as a hero, questions have been created on her loyalty as well. Some of her decisions have been altered by the Supreme Court. However, some of her decisions cannot remain out of controversy in the history of Nepal’s judiciary. Sushila Karki’s bench had ordered to the Commission for Investigation on Abuse of Authority (CIAA), a constitutional body, for not initiating any investigation on Kanak Dixit against abuse of authority. Can a judiciary body give such an order to the constitutional body which has been assigned to investigate abuse of authority?
The constitution has adopted the assumption of people’s supremacy. In this regard, the Parliament, a body of the people’s representatives, should be the supreme body. When an impeachment motion against the then CIAA chief Lokman Singh Karki was registered in the Parliament, was it justifiable to move forward the case against Karki by the Supreme Court and terminate him, legal experts question?
Sushila Karki was instrumental in altering the property case of former Princess Prerana. Earlier, the Supreme Court had given the verdict that the property gifted by the then king Gyanendra to his daughter at her marriage was legal and the property cannot go to the Nepal Trust. Karki, by neglecting all the evidences, had altered the case. In this property case, some legal experts believe that the judiciary body did injustice against the former Princess. First of all, the property gifted to former Princesses Prerana was not King Birendra’s private property but the property of King Binrendra and King Gyanendra’s aunty, which later came under the ownership of King Gyanendra. The second case is that the property was gifted by the then King to the then Princess as per the law of the country. If the decisions made at the capacity of a king can be altered, the then king had made many decisions including appointment of Girija Prasad Koirala as the prime minister, restoration of the parliament even by misusing the constitutional provisions. What about the other decisions made by the then king?
Of course, the judiciary body has been highly politicized as political parties are assigning party activists instead of independent professionals. Sushila Karki like people allowed political intervention in the judiciary body and finally she also became victim of politics as impeachment motion was registered against her in the parliament.
So far, a group of media having vested interests is intended to make Karki, a zero to a hero! Sure, the ruling party had misused power by registering impeachment motion against chief justice Karki. The impeachment motion was aimed at stopping some corruption related as well as criminal cases. Karki, herself, has disclosed that there was rampant intervention from the political leaders on her work, nevertheless, Karki herself didn’t respect to her post and was not able to justify her role in many cases. In the judiciary history, she will be remembered as the chief justice who introduced anarchism.