From today's Letter to editor Kantipur


थुप्रै छन् मोतीमायाहरू
सम्पादकज्यू,

मंगलबारको प्रथम पृष्ठमा 'आजन्म अदालत' शीर्षक समाचार पढेपछि नेपालको न्याय प्रणालीदेखि वाक्क लागेर आयो । त्रियासी वषर्ीया बूढी मोतीमाया श्रेष्ठको कथा बडो यथार्थ र मार्मिक रहेछ । अन्यायमा परेकाहरूले कसरी न्याय पाउँछन् ? कहिले पाउँछन् ? यससम्बन्धी कानुनी प्रक्रिया कस्ता हुँदा रहेछन् भन्ने पनि स्पष्ट भएको छ । कानुनी प्रणालीमा देखिएका कमीकमजोरी र समस्या खोजिएकोमा संवाददाता बालकृष्ण बस्नेतलाई धन्यवाद ।

पहिले पनि ३५ वर्षदेखि न्याय नपाएकी सफलादेवीका बारेमा कान्तिपुरमा सचित्र प्रकाशित भएको थियो । त्यसपछि अदालतको ध्यानाकर्षण भई उनको फैसला कार्यान्वयन हुन थाल्यो । त्यसको केही महिनामै मृत्यु भएको खबर यसै पत्रिकामा पढियो । मोतीमाया र सफलादेवीजस्तै मुद्दामा अल्भिmरहेका अरू पनि धेरै यस्ता पात्र अड्डा अदालतमा भेटिन्छन् । पत्रिकाले यो शृङ्खला जारी राख्नुपर्छ, न्याय व्यवस्थामा सुधार ल्याउनका निम्ति पनि ।

- सरिता ओली, राम मैनाली

बुटवल

While going through the archives, this is what was published in the Fall of 1996 in The Kathmandu Post.

***********************

Covering Nepal's legal profession

by Ashutosh Tiwari

More than a decade ago, the American legal profession
used to enjoy virtually no press coverage. Sure, the press did cover
the details of public-interest cases and the decisions of various
courts. But the legal profession itself was left largely unprobed --
letting it be just a high-salaried, upper-class, exclusively discreet
club of White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male attorneys.

That elite clubbiness started to shake, however, upon
the publication of "American Lawyer" -- an independent newspaper
devoted solely to the legal profession. Overnight, lawyers from Hawaii
to Maine were waking up to read who among them were the worst-paid, the
most corrupt, the most sexist, the most racist, the most unethical, the
most involved in issues of conflict-of-interest, the most unfair to
employees and so forth. The effects of these reports, in tandem with
changes in the general American society, were enormous.

Stung by first-rate journalism that laid bare their
ethical failings and professional lapses, the lawyers discovered that --
lo and behold! -- they had to be accountable not only to the toting up
of 'billable hours', but, more importantly, to that elusive precept
called public responsibility. In fact, so traumatizing was
this 'discovery' that by the early '90s, virtually all major American
law schools were requiring their students to take a course on 'legal
ethics'[however oxymoronic that may sound].

I use this [analogy] to point out that by exposing the
corrupt and the unethical within the legal profession, only responsible
[investigative] journalism can make the democratic principles of rights
and liberties relevant in citizens' lives. Yet, considering that we in
Nepal now live under the 'rule of law', laws and lawyers have hardly
ever been subjects of probing reports and analyses.

A few months ago [July, 1996], for example, an
illiterate woman attempted to kill herself at the Supreme Court in
Kathmandu. Yet, neither the Nepal Bar Association nor any of the legal
fraternities (much less a single Nepali human-rights NGO) saw it fit to
issue a statement. What's more, not a single journalist delved into the
story to inform the public what had happened in the course of the
woman's legal proceedings, and why.

Sadly, the thing is that that woman could have been any
one of Nepal's millions of other illiterate women. And, when the legal
profession and the press fail to react to that story and others with
due gravity and sensitivity, something about our democracy dies.

It's also disturbing to see the lawyers and the courts
in Nepal put themselves up on a pedestal, as though anything anyone
says against them could be inflated as a "maan-haani" (defamation)
issue -- with the accused rushed through the system to be fined and
jailed. Such paranoia is ultimately self-defeating, however; for all it
does is stifle debates and investigations, thereby unwittingly
reinforcing the all-too-common perception that by not being open and
transparent about what they do about public-interest issues, Nepali
lawyers, their professional organizations and the courts do have much
to hide.

Then again, that's why we need more investigative
journalists -- the intelligently crusading ones who are not afraid to
take the risks to cut through the obscure (Nepali-kagat-style) legalese
to bring out the public truth about how and why Nepal's legal
profession and the court-systems really work or do not work.

To be sure, a separate publication with the name Nepali
Wokil devoted only to covering the legal profession may not be
financially viable in Nepal. But a good start would be made if only
some of our finest journalists stretched the limits of this "maan-
haani" bugaboo by critically and consistently covering the legal issues
and all sections of the legal profession for their newspapers.

(Added later: Yes, the American legal professsion is still no
bastion of saints (not will it ever be!), but because of the press,
it's now more open and transparent than ever before. The Nepali press
could similarly look into the Nepali legal profession.)

[Originally published in The Kathmandu Post in the Fall of 1996.]

10 years later, the issue remains pretty much the same.

From today's Kantipur.

मोतीमायाका आँसु

'गरिबलाई ऐन धनीलाई चैन' भन्ने उखान पहिलेदेखिकै हो । गरिबलाई झन् गरिब बनाउन नेपालका ऐन कानुनको प्रयोग गरिएका छन् । ८३ वर्षको उमेरसम्म मुद्दामा लडिरहेकी वृद्धा मोतीमायालाई पनि यिनै कानुनले साथ नदिएको हुनुपर्छ । नत्र सर्वाेच्च अदालतले फैसला गरेपछि फेरि किन जिल्ला अदालतमा संघर्ष गर्नुपथ्र्याे ।

पुस ५ गते प्रकाशित 'आजन्म अदालत' शीर्षक समाचारले नेपालका यिनै पुराना ऐन कानुनलाई छर्लंग पारेको छ । जसको सहारामा अदालती कर्मचारी, वकिलहरू मोतीमायाजस्तै थुप्रै पीडितलाई अदालतमा वषर्ाैंदेखि अल्झाइरहेका छन् । मोतीमायाका आँसुले त्यस्ता ऐन कानुन जसको आडमा जति पनि र जहिले पनि

मुद्दा हाल्ने प्रवृत्ति अन्त होस् । प्रधानन्यायाधीशको ध्यान जाओस् ।

- सुशील शर्मा

नयाँ बानेश्वर, काठमाडौं

Ashu-jee,
Namaste.

"More than a decade ago, the American legal profession
used to enjoy virtually no press coverage."

First, I find that misleading and not objective at all. That could mean 1900 or even 1700 or even earlier... Was it poorly written for "until a decade ago" or just wanted to take a safer approach [at the expense of journalistic objectivity] so that you're never wrong? For a seemingly smart guy like you, I am inclined to think that the latter is the case. I don't know if it's just me who sees the problem.

Now, you only posted the "Letters" from the two readers of Kantipur. You did not post the actual news article that inspired those letters. I did a little research to dig it out, and here it is:

- http://www.kantipuronline.com/nepali/kolnews.php?&nid=60494

The funny thing is, I failed to see how the two articles (yours and this) were related. You simply tied the letters to your article [deliberately or] without perhaps even reading the original Kantipur article?

Thanks for posting your decade-old article (which is what your apparent objective seems to be anyway) but you could've as well started a new thread with your own piece, rather than try to [wrongly] justify the relevance of your article by wrapping it with the letters out of context.

guess, i'm having to play the investigate journalist here myself, eh! ;-)

All these postings fall under the broad umbrella of "Nepal ko Kanoon".
Hopefully, others with more ideas about Nepal ko Kanoon will join with their thoughts.

oohi
ashu

Haha. Nice try.

Well, here's what you did:

1. Posted a letter from Kantipur;
2. Subsequently posted your article from 1996;
3. Then said "10 years later, the issue remains pretty much the same. From today's Kantipur." Then posted another letter from Kantipur.

Now, what is the 'issue' that 'remains pretty much the same' between your article and the letters? So 'Nepal ko Kanoon' is the issue??????? Is it even ethical for a national journalist like you [that's what I've heard] to make such manipulation? Or is it that you're one of those who must prove at all costs that they're never wrong?!!

I'm sure the readers are smart enough to make the judgment. I'll happily concede if my assertions are deemed unfounded.

Echoes,

Haray baba, I am NOT a journalist, yaar, let alone a national one.

Never was.
Never will be.

Yes, I once hovered close to the profession, but that was akin to the way visiting hospitals will NEVER make one a medical doctor.

Journalism is NOT how I make money.

Why is that Nepalis think that anyone who writes regularly for the public (in his spare time) must be some full-time professional "national" journalist?

Can't professionals from other fields NOT write from time to time to help stimulate public discussions on many issues?

If anything, there is such a scarcity of "good" public writers in Nepal that I would encourage professionals from other fields -- architecture, the arts, science, public policy, etc -- to seriously consider writing regularly for Nepal's various newspapers
in their spare time. I, for one, have always encouraged others to write.

****

That said, yes, the fact that the legal system remains stacked against old, illiterate Nepali women -- then and now - is worthy of further public discussion. I certainly do
NOT have the answers, but I thought these issues are worthy of sharing to get
some collective thinking warmed up IN A FREE-FLOWING manner.

This thread does NOT have to be about me.

Katti bhannay, yaar.
Jhayu lagi sakyo.

oohi
ashhu

Oh, well... Fair enough [only with the understanding that this thread may end up being negatively about you the person, which I don't think will be fair].

Today's editorial in Kantipur

अदालती माखेसाङ्लो



- एकपछि अर्को मुद्दामा जेलिएकी वृद्धा मोतीमाया श्रेष्ठको दारुण पीडाले मुलुकको वर्तमान न्यायप्रणालीलाई झस्काएको छ । छिटो र छरितो न्यायको मार्गमा थुप्रै खाले अप्ठ्याराहरू छन् भन्ने यसले प्रस्ट पारेको छ । एउटै विवादका लागि चार दशकसम्म न्यायिक संघर्ष भोगेकी मोतीमायाको कथा न्यायिक सुधारका लागि पनि गतिलो पाठ बन्न सक्छ ।
न्यायका लागि जीवनभर अदालत धाइरहनुपर्ने स्थिति आफंैमा विडम्बनापूर्ण हो । भनिन्छ, ढिलो न्याय दिनु नदिनुसरह नै हो । ढिलो गर्दा कागजमा न्याय देखिए पनि वास्तविक न्याय मरिसकेको हुन्छ । पीडितले न्यायको अनुभूति पाउँदैनन् । यसले अदालतप्रतिको आस्था र जनविश्वासमा नै प्रश्न थुपार्छ, जुन सभ्य र सुसंस्कृत समाजका लागि सदैव हानिकारक हुन्छ ।

त्रियासी वषर्ीय यी वृद्धाको संघर्षले न्यायमा ढिलासुस्ती त छर्लंगै पारेको छ, सँगै जटिल कानुनी व्यवस्था, अदालती संस्कार, कर्मचारी, कानुन व्यवसायीहरूको प्रवृत्तिलाई पनि उजागर गरेको छ । ढिलो न्यायका अनेक कारण हुनसक्छन् । मुद्दामाथि मुद्दा थुपार्न मिल्ने ऐन, कानुनहरू अझै विद्यमान हुनु, त्यसकै आधारमा कर्मचारी, कानुन व्यवसायीहरूले मुद्दाका पक्षहरूलाई घुमाइरहनु, फैसला/आदेशहरू कार्यान्वयनमा विलम्ब गर्नु, कार्यान्वयनका सट्टा फैसलाविरुद्ध प्रपञ्च रच्नु इत्यादिले मुद्दा लम्याएको हुन्छ । मोतीमाया एक प्रतिनिधिमात्र हुन् । समयमै न्याय नपाई अप्ठ्यारोमा परेका, वर्षौंसम्म मुद्दा लड्दा थकित भएका, तन, मन र धनले हरेस खाएका थुप्रै पक्षहरू अदालतमा भेटिन्छन् । केही वर्ष पहिले काभ्रेकी सफलादेवीले पैंतीस वर्ष अदालत धाउँदा पनि न्याय नपाएको समाचार सार्वजनिक भएको थियो । फैसला कार्यान्वयन भइनसक्दै उनको मृत्यु भएको प्रसंग यहाँ स्मरणीय हुन्छ ।

एकै विवादमा विभिन्न बहाना झिकी बेग्लाबेग्लै मुद्दाहरू पनि दायर भएका छन् । यसले मुद्दाको चापसमेत बढाएको छ । अभिलेख पद्धति राम्रो नहुँदा मुद्दा दोहोरिने सम्भावना बढी हुन्छ । यसका लागि अदालतको भौतिक सुधारमा पनि ख्याल गर्नुपर्छ । फैसला कार्यान्वयनको जिम्मेवारी बोकेको ँतहसिल� फाँट चुस्त-दुरुस्त राखे धेरै समस्या हल हुन्छ । यसबारे बेला-बेलामा हुने न्यायाधीश सम्मेलनले दिने प्रतिवेदनहरूले पनि पर्याप्त सुझाव दिएका छन् । यसको कार्यान्वयन हुनुपर्छ । अदालत र मुद्दाका पक्ष दुवैलाई अनावश्यक हैरानीबाट मुक्ति दिन न्यायिक संस्कार र पद्धतिको पुनरावलोकन हुनैपर्छ ।

मोतीमायाको मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले अन्तिम भनेको फैसला कार्यान्वयन हुनसकेको छैन । उल्टै त्यसविरुद्ध मुद्दा परेको थियो जिल्ला अदालतमा । काठमाडौं अदालतले मंगलबार उनीविरुद्ध मुद्दा खारेज गरिसकेको छ । सर्वोच्च तहबाट अन्तिम फैसला भएको उल्लेख गर्दै खारेज गरेको हो । अब त्यसको कार्यान्वयनमा पनि ढिलाइ गर्नु हुँदैन । तहतह हुँदै मुद्दा सर्वोच्च पुग्ने, उसले गरेका फैसला कार्यान्वयन हुनुको साटो फेरि तल्लो अदालतबाट मुद्दा सुरु हुने हो भने मुद्दा कहिले टुंगिँदैन । सर्वोच्चको फैसला ँअन्तिम� बन्न पनि सक्दैनन् । फैसला बदर या कार्यान्वयनमा प्रश्न उठाउँदै परेका थप जिकिरहरूको स्पष्ट मापदण्ड र आधार नतोक्दा यी समस्या देखिएका हुन् ।

मोतीमाया र सफलादेवीका जस्तै पीडा अब दोहोरिनु हुँदैन । यसका लागि कानुन र व्यवहार दुवैमा सच्चाइको खाँचो छ । यदि पुराना ऐन, कानुन बाधक भए समयोचित संशोधन हुनुपर्छ । दशकौं वर्ष पहिलेका कानुनी व्यवस्थाले एक्काइसौं शताब्दीको अपेक्षा र आवश्यकता पूर्ति गर्न सक्दैनन् । सर्वोच्चको पूर्ण बैठक, न्यायपरिषद्, न्यायसेवा आयोग, कानुन मन्त्रालय, बार एसोसियसन लगायत सम्बद्ध पक्षको यसतर्फ ध्यानाकर्षण हुन ढिलो भइसकेको छ ।