Sasmit Pokharel Defends Manoj kumar Sharma Recommendation

The government has defended its controversial recommendation for the country’s next Chief Justice, saying the decision was made mainly on the basis of judicial performance and case settlement records rather than seniority alone.

Government spokesperson and Minister for Education, Science and Technology Sasmit Pokharel said the Constitutional Council used work efficiency as a key indicator while recommending Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma for the post of Chief Justice. The recommendation has drawn national attention after three senior judges were bypassed in the process.

Speaking while announcing Cabinet decisions on Friday, Pokharel said the recommendation reflected a new approach focused on performance evaluation. The Constitutional Council had on Thursday recommended Sharma, who was fourth in the seniority order, over Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Prasad Phuyal.

Government Says Recommendation Was Based on Performance

Pokharel said the latest recommendation marked what he described as the first attempt to prioritize case disposal records and work capacity in selecting a Chief Justice.

According to him, the government considered judicial efficiency as an important indicator during the recommendation process. He stated that the decision was not solely guided by traditional seniority practice.

The minister said the government viewed the move as an effort to introduce performance-based evaluation into judicial appointments, even though he acknowledged that the process was not yet perfect.

Minister Calls Current Method an Improvement

While defending the decision, Pokharel admitted that the existing process still needed further reforms and improvements.

He said the current recommendation system should continue evolving in a more systematic way so that a stronger and more transparent process could be developed in the future.

At the same time, he argued that the present approach was better than previous practices because it attempted to assess candidates through their professional performance.

Pokharel also claimed that this was the first time in the country’s judicial history that work efficiency had been openly used as a major factor in recommending a Chief Justice.

Senior Judges Were Bypassed in Recommendation

The Constitutional Council’s recommendation immediately became a subject of public discussion because Sharma was not the most senior judge in line for the position.

Three senior figures — Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Prasad Phuyal — were ahead of Sharma in the order of seniority.

The decision to bypass them has led to criticism and debate from different sections, with questions being raised about the selection criteria and broader judicial appointment system.

Pokharel addressed those concerns during the press briefing and said discussions surrounding judicial appointments were not new.

Questions Raised Over Political Influence

During his remarks, Pokharel also pointed to long-standing concerns regarding political influence within judicial bodies.

He said many legal experts had repeatedly argued that judges with political backgrounds were entering the judiciary through existing appointment mechanisms.

The minister specifically referred to the Judicial Council, saying that three out of its five members appeared to hold positions that resembled political appointments.

According to him, concerns had often been raised about how judges recommended through such institutions were viewed as politically connected figures.

Debate Intensifies Around Judicial Appointments

The recommendation of Sharma has intensified wider debate about judicial independence and the process used to appoint top judicial officials.

Critics have questioned whether bypassing seniority could affect trust in the judiciary, while supporters of the government’s position argue that professional performance should receive greater attention.

Pokharel’s comments suggested that the government wants future judicial appointments to focus more heavily on measurable work output rather than relying entirely on traditional hierarchy.

The discussion has also revived broader concerns over how judicial institutions are structured and whether reforms are needed to reduce perceptions of political influence.

Government Defends Decision Amid Public Criticism

Despite criticism surrounding the recommendation, the government has continued to defend the Constitutional Council’s decision.

Pokharel maintained that the recommendation process aimed to introduce accountability and performance evaluation into one of the country’s most important constitutional appointments.

He said the government believed reforms should continue gradually and that the latest recommendation represented an important step toward a different appointment culture.

The controversy surrounding the Chief Justice recommendation is expected to remain a major national discussion as legal experts, political observers and judicial stakeholders continue debating the future direction of judicial appointments.