CPN lawmaker Barshaman Pun questioned Dr. Ratnabahadur Bagchand, who has been proposed as a Supreme Court justice, during a meeting of the parliamentary hearing committee. As the committee discussed Bagchand’s work plan, Pun asked him to explain the basis for his confidence that he could deliver justice without pressure or influence.
Focus on independence and impartiality
Pun’s question placed judicial independence at the centre of the hearing discussion. Rather than asking only about the proposed judge’s plans for the role, he asked what supported Bagchand’s assurance that he could decide cases free from outside pressure. The question directly raised the issue of how a prospective justice would protect the fairness of the judicial process.
The exchange took place as Bagchand presented or discussed his work plan before the committee. The available account does not specify what Bagchand said in response, nor does it provide further details about the plan. It does establish that Pun asked him to explain the grounds for his confidence in being able to administer justice without influence.
Hearing examines nominee’s work plan
The committee’s discussion of Bagchand’s work plan provided the setting for Pun’s inquiry. His question connected the nominee’s proposed approach to the responsibilities of the Supreme Court post: the ability to deliver justice without being swayed by pressure. The issue was framed as a request for an explanation of confidence, rather than as a report of a finding against the nominee.
The reported exchange does not say that Pun alleged Bagchand had already faced pressure or had acted under influence. It also does not state whether the committee reached a decision on the nomination during the meeting. The information available is limited to the question raised during the discussion of the work plan.
A proposed appointment to the Supreme Court brings scrutiny of a nominee’s ability to carry out judicial duties. In this hearing, Pun’s question asked Bagchand to set out why he believed he could fulfil those duties independently. The exchange therefore focused on the basis for that assurance, while leaving the nominee’s response and the committee’s subsequent proceedings unspecified.
