The government’s decision to withdraw the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Sushila Karki earlier this week led to positive consequences. The registration of the motion had raised fears that the executive would steadily encroach upon the jurisdiction of other organs of state. The withdrawal has averted a major conflict between the two of the most important organs of state, which could have led to highly detrimental consequences for Nepal’s fragile democracy.

The decision to withdraw the motion also resolved one dispute that lay in the path to the second phase of local elections. The CPN-UML withdrew parliamentary obstructions and allowed the budget to be passed. To some extent, the withdrawal also indicates the power of civil society. The government backed down on its decision as a result of widespread opposition, not just from political parties, but civil society groups and rights organisations.

However, there are still concerns that the impeachment motion and the events that occurred in its aftermath will have damaging effects on the Nepali state for some time to come. It is a relief that the dispute between the executive and the judiciary has been resolved, but the manner in which the dispute was resolved remains problematic. By all accounts, the dispute was resolved through negotiations between judges and political leaders. In exchange for the government’s commitment not to push ahead with the impeachment motion, the Supreme Court appears to have agreed not to push ahead with the case regarding the appointment of the new Inspector General of Police (IGP). In a functioning democracy, such negotiations would be regarded as transgressions of basic democratic norms, even a form of collusion. This sets a bad precedent. It is to be hoped that Supreme Court judges do not take decisions on sensitive cases through negotiations with political leaders in the future. It is crucial that they maintain their independence.

The impeachment motion could well continue to have chilling effects on the judiciary and other constitutional bodies. Over the past two years, senior officials of state have seen how the parties can neutralise them by simply deploying the threat of impeachment. All this requires is signatures from 25 percent of parliamentarians. This could lead to a situation where the judiciary becomes more willing to toe the party line than in the past. We have already seen how the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has become moribund after the removal of Lokman Singh Karki as its head. Although the motion against the chief justice has been withdrawn, it is time to hold a widespread conversation about whether the provision for impeachment in the constitution providesthe parties with too much power. A constitutional amendment to provide a higher threshold for registering an impeachment motion might be too much to ask. But perhaps there could be regulations that require parties to hold broad public consultation before registering such a motion. Such measures will help prevent abuse of power by the parties.