If by chance our lawmakers think they are doing justice to the constitution by putting their nominee for chief justice through the grind in terms of a hearing they are doing the contrary. Neither has justice Cholendra Rana done the Supreme Court and his aspired for office justice by going through the grind and putting forth his case as to why he should be chief justice. Both seem to have acknowledged officially and through the mainstream media that our justice system is in a malignant state and something needs be done for remedy. In the first place, both judge and jury are part of a system that cannot escape guilt for having brought the state of the judiciary to this dismal status. The jury that in this case is the legislative hearing body is product of a system that played havoc to the sanctum that that is the constitution and are members of parties and a committee the existence of which stands testimony to the fact that constitutionalism can be so tampered with. For another justice Rana has born silent witness all these years of decline of the independence of the judiciary to the point that he would want to take the chief justice post to rid the judiciary of middle men. Neither are the legislators are seemingly aware that the independence of the judiciary is guarded through in-built remedies of misjudgment that prevent the aberration of justice for the sanctity of the judge to be so painfully flaunted through public charges so publicly voiced. But, then, our overlords in their perennial search of political advantage and our mainstream media so gleefully the judge and jury themselves would want the advantage of the drama regardless of its cost to the system. Justice Rana, of course, would want to run the gauntlet as he must to seek his aspired for post.
Rana, of course, is no exception. In built systems of corrections have been so painfully tampered with from the constitution onwards that the country is gradually recognizing that the crass search for partisan advantage has effected the country overall and is day by day doing more damage than remedy. The previous chief justice appointment controversy has so exposed the duplicity in constitutional provisions that the judicial sector itself is still reeling from the exposure. When law suffers, the system does as well. When we talk of the role of middle-men so openly, the public cannot but conclude of its prevalence all over. The media may ignore the role of the middleman in politics and it can but turn a blind eye to what role they have assumed in this scheme of things, but law is law and its violations in terms of public security cannot be unreported as is witnessed day by day. The problem is that the all pervasiveness of impudence begins with the making of the constitution itself. Without doubt, the use of violence in that case has left its mark on a society that has turned to violence and the spread of hate. Corrections here needed for national performance itself. To conceive that the country only now realizes the fault in allowing middlemen bulldozers to build roads wherever they deem fit has resulted in unaccountable national loss when there were in-built measures already to prevent this. This is as much as saying that periodic audit laws and accounting were ignored for the middle-men’s gain over decades and the effects were covered up by a supposed movement to change the constitution. After all it is the media that allowed the term ‘don’ unchallenged to legitimize the muscle in this era of constitutional hypocrisy.