Nain Singh Mahar, a leader of the Nepali Congress, has warned that attacks on the judiciary and other key state institutions carried out to serve vested interests are unacceptable, cautioning that Nepal's national strength erodes whenever its national institutions are weakened. In a statement posted on Facebook, Mahar expressed serious concern over recent reports of special settings involving the judiciary and major state institutions, saying these have raised serious questions about their independence and credibility. His remarks place the concerns of a political leader behind issues that are more often raised by legal practitioners and civil society observers, and they frame the defence of the judiciary as a matter of national interest rather than a narrow legal debate.
A Warning Against Weakening the State's Pillars
In his statement, Mahar described attacks on the judiciary and other key state institutions as unacceptable when they are driven by vested interests. He tied the health of these bodies directly to the wellbeing of the country, warning that when national institutions weaken, the country's national strength erodes. The formulation presents the protection of the judiciary not as the concern of any single group, but as something bound up with the capacity of the state itself to function and command confidence.
The argument reflects a principle long emphasised in discussions of democratic governance: institutions such as the courts derive their authority not merely from legal text, but from public belief that they act independently and in accordance with the law. When that belief is shaken, whether through pressure, interference or the appearance of improper influence, the damage extends beyond the institution concerned to the constitutional order that depends on it. Mahar's statement, as reported by Pradeskhabar, positions him squarely within that tradition of concern for institutional autonomy.
Special Settings Draw Scrutiny
The immediate focus of his concern, according to the statement, is a series of recent reports about special settings involving the judiciary and major state institutions. Special settings are hearings that courts can schedule ahead of the regular cause list, typically on grounds of urgency. Because such settings allow particular cases to move ahead of others, they are a natural point at which questions of transparency and equal treatment arise.
Mahar said the recent reports have raised serious questions about the independence and credibility of the institutions involved. The fact that the reports concern major state institutions adds to the sensitivity, since a judiciary that is perceived to extend special arrangements involving organs of the state risks the same credibility deficit as one seen to favour private interests. For ordinary citizens, the concern is practical as much as abstract: confidence that their cases will be heard on their merits, in their proper turn, without regard to who they are or whom they represent.
Independence and Credibility Go Together
Mahar's warning that weakened institutions erode national strength rests on a straightforward reality of democratic systems. The judiciary acts as the guardian of the constitution and of citizens' rights, and its authority depends almost entirely on public trust. Unlike elected bodies, courts command neither budgets nor mandates; their power lies in the acceptance of their decisions as legitimate. Once that acceptance is eroded, the cost is borne not by any single government but by the legal order itself.
The link between independence and credibility that Mahar drew is therefore more than rhetoric. A judiciary may be formally independent, yet still lose standing in the public eye if its processes, including the scheduling of urgent hearings, appear open to influence. Sustaining both qualities requires transparency in day to day administration, as well as restraint on the part of any actor who might seek to shape outcomes for advantage. His statement underscores that questions about process, even those that concern scheduling rather than judgment, can carry weight precisely because credibility is so difficult to rebuild once lost.
A Political Leader's Public Intervention
Statements of this kind carry particular significance when they come from within a major political party. The Nepali Congress, of which Mahar is a leader, has been central to Nepal's democratic politics for decades and is closely tied to the constitutional framework that the judiciary underpins. When figures associated with such parties voice concern about attacks on courts and other institutions, it highlights that the defence of institutional independence is not the preserve of the opposition or of the legal profession alone.
Mahar's choice of Facebook as the medium for his statement is also consistent with the way political communication operates in Nepal today, where leaders routinely use social media to place their views on the public record quickly and directly. By posting his warning openly, he has made his position available to be read, shared and debated in full. For now, the significance of the statement lies in its argument: it identifies a problem, the reported special settings and the broader pattern of attacks on institutions, and frames the stakes in terms of national strength. His intervention makes clear that concern over the independence and credibility of Nepal's key institutions extends across political lines, and that questions surrounding them are being watched closely from within the political system itself.
