Kathmandu - The Nepal Bar Association (NBA) has come out firmly against a proposal to make district judges serve as mediators, with its president, senior advocate Prof. Dr. Bijay Prasad Mishra, declaring on Thursday that judges cannot be given the responsibility of mediators. Speaking during a discussion on the Mediation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2083 held at the parliamentary Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee in Kathmandu, Mishra said the proposal runs against constitutional provisions and made clear that the country's umbrella body of lawyers rejects the arrangement outright.

The remarks came as the committee continued its deliberations on the bill, one of whose proposals would formally place district judges in the role of mediators. Mishra's intervention signals that the provision faces determined resistance from the legal profession even as lawmakers work to advance the amendment.

Judges should not be assigned work beyond the bench

Mishra's position before the committee was direct. He objected to the specific proposal to make district judges mediators, saying that judges should not be assigned any work other than their judicial duties. In his assessment, mediation is not a responsibility that can be handed to judges, and the attempt to do so through the amendment bill is inconsistent with the constitution.

His objections, as placed on record during Thursday's discussion, can be summarized as follows:

  • Judges cannot be given the responsibility of mediators.
  • The proposal to make district judges mediators goes against constitutional provisions.
  • Judges should not be assigned work other than judicial duties.
  • The Nepal Bar Association rejects such an arrangement altogether.

The weight of the statement derives in part from Mishra's standing. As NBA president and a senior advocate, he speaks for the organization that represents Nepal's legal practitioners, a body that is routinely drawn into debates over legislation affecting the courts and the justice system. The association's declared rejection means the provision will be contested as the bill moves through parliamentary scrutiny.

The constitutional argument at the heart of the objection

The objection rests on the principle that adjudication and mediation are distinct functions. Judges decide disputes brought before the courts, applying the law and delivering binding decisions. Mediation, by contrast, is a process in which a neutral third party helps disputing parties negotiate a settlement of their own making. In the Bar's view, the two roles are fundamentally different, and merging them in a single office holder would blur a separation that the constitutional order maintains.

Mishra framed the issue in exactly these terms. Assigning judges to mediation duty, he argued, would amount to requiring them to perform work that falls outside their judicial mandate, something the constitutional scheme does not permit. A judge who acts as a mediator would be drawn from the bench into a facilitative role, a shift he characterized as incompatible with judicial office.

The concern also speaks to the broader value of judicial independence. Debates over whether judges should take on non-judicial responsibilities traditionally turn on the fear that outside assignments can distract from, or compromise, the impartial adjudicative function. Mishra's warning that judges "should not be assigned work other than judicial duties" places the NBA squarely within that tradition, and his description of the proposal as contrary to constitutional provisions gives the objection a legal footing rather than a merely administrative one.

The bill under committee scrutiny

The provision at issue sits within the Mediation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2083, which is currently before the Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee. By its title, the bill proposes a second round of amendments to Nepal's mediation law, and the clause that would make district judges mediators has emerged as the flashpoint of the ongoing discussions.

Thursday's sitting in Kathmandu gave stakeholders the opportunity to respond to the bill, and the NBA used the occasion to register its opposition in unambiguous language. According to reporting by Nagarik News, Mishra told the committee that the Bar Association rejects the arrangement of judges serving as mediators.

Mediation holds an established place in Nepal's justice system as a form of alternative dispute resolution, valued for helping parties resolve disputes without the cost and delay of full litigation. Precisely because the amendment would weave sitting judges into that process, it has drawn the kind of professional scrutiny that Mishra's remarks now exemplify. The fact that the objection was voiced inside the committee itself underscores how central the judges-as-mediators question has become to the bill's consideration.

What the Bar's opposition means for the bill

The NBA's rejection presents the committee with a concrete point of contention. District judges preside over the district courts, the principal courts of first instance in Nepal's judicial hierarchy, and any provision that redefines their responsibilities touches the core of the trial judiciary. The Bar leadership's argument that such a redefinition is constitutionally impermissible will now stand alongside whatever support the provision commands within the committee.

For the moment, the positions are clear. The proposal seeks to make district judges mediators, and the Nepal Bar Association, speaking through its president, wants no part of it. How the committee responds to that opposition as it continues its work on the Mediation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2083 will shape the final form of the legislation.