On its third attempt, the Supreme Court finally managed to serve a summons order to Lokman Singh Karki, chief of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA).

In the process, attention was drawn to a rather quaint legal procedure. In order to summon someone to the Court, it is necessary for court officials to deliver a summons order to the defendant’s house in the presence of a ward official and two other witnesses. The first two attempts to deliver summons to Karki’s house failed because of some obstructions to the process, the nature of which have remained opaque.

It is strange in the current age of mass media and electronic communication that the court is still required to personally deliver summons orders to defendants’ houses. After all, it is inconceivable that Karki would not have been aware of the summons order before it was delivered to his house. On a larger scale, there must be numerous other small procedures and rituals of this kind that have become archaic. Perhaps a judicial committee should be established to modernise such procedures.

That said, now that the summons order has been delivered to Karki’s house, the proceedings against him in the Supreme Court can finally begin. In recent months, there has been much scrutiny of Karki’s actions, many of which seem suspiciously intended to avoid appearing before the court. Most recently, he left the country for an extended stay in Canada. He appears to have left Canada by now, but it is unclear where he is currently staying or when he will return to Nepal. According to the law, Karki has to appear before the Supreme Court in 15 days, with the possibility of extending this by another 15 days. It is unclear whether or how he will respond to this summons.

Karki would do well to appear before the Supreme Court within the required time and extend his cooperation. If he feels that the charges against him are false, he should make all efforts to clear his name in an open way. Refusing to engage with the court or impugning the judges’ motives would be absolutely the wrong path to follow.

The function of the CIAA’s chief is to ensure that public officials follow the rule of law. It would be ironic and deeply detrimental to the rule of law itself if the head of the CIAA himself attempts to flout the rule of law. Karki should not be worried that he will become the target of a political vendetta. The Supreme Court is among the more credible state institutions in this country. It is more than likely that he will receive a fair hearing, where he will have ample opportunity to defend himself.