尼泊尔最高法院
尼泊尔最高法院 （尼泊爾語：）是尼泊尔的最高法院。其对尼布尔7个高等法院（包括高等法院的11个法庭）的决定有上诉管辖权以及特别原诉管辖权。法院包含二十名常任法官和一名首席法官。[1][2]
| 尼泊尔最高法院 | |
|---|---|
| सर्वोच्च अदालत | |
 Supreme Court Building | |
| 設立 | 21 May 1956 |
| 所在地 | Ram Shah Path, 加德滿都, 尼泊尔 |
| 所在国 |  尼泊尔 |
| 經緯度 | 27.697°N 85.322°E |
| 法官選任方式 | 由总统提名，并由议会 同意 |
| 設立法源 | 尼泊尔宪法 |
| 上訴法院 | 尼泊尔总统 （特赦或减刑） |
| 法官任期 | 无届次限制（直至65岁） |
| 法官人數 | 1名首席法官以及20名常任法官 |
| 網址 | supremecourt.gov.np |
| 首席法官 | |
| 現任 | Om Prakash Mishra |
| 首長上任時間 | 2018年9月10日 |
组成
最高法院由1位首席法官和20位常任法官组成。法官均需由宪法委员会推荐，并由尼泊尔总统任命，唯仅有在最高法院内担任法官三年及以上者才有资格获荐成为首席法官。法官的任命需要经过国会的听证会认可。
The administrative head of the Supreme Court is the Chief Registrar. In addition to the Chief Registrar, one Registrar and four Joint-Registrar are appointed to led different departments of the Supreme Court and offer administrative assistance to the Court. Officers of the Supreme Court are appointed by Government of Nepal under the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.
Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed from among the judges who have worked for seven years as judges of the High Courts, or Gazetted first class officer of Judicial Service for minimum 12 years or have worked as any Senior Advocate or Advocate with minimum practicing experience of fifteen years, or a distinguished 法学家 who has worked for minimum 15 years in the judicial or legal field.
Justices of the Supreme Court hold their office till the age of sixty-five. They may be removed through an Impeachment (motion) passed by a two third majority of the House of Representatives on the ground of incompetence or bad moral conduct or dishonesty. The Chief Justice and the Justices may resign from office at any time by submitting resignation to the President.
最高法院最早于维克拉姆历2013年（公元1956年）建立。首任首席法官为Hari Prasad Pradhan。
权力与职能
The Supreme Court has both 司法機構 and extra judicial powers. The judicial powers include the power of hearing the writ petitions, the power of hearing 上訴, the power of reviewing its own 決斷s, the power to revise the 決斷s delivered by the Court of Appeal and the power to try certain cases (as specified by law). The Supreme Court also has power of making 程序法, administration of all the Court of Appeal and all the District Courts, formulating policies and programs regarding judicial administration, managerial reforms in various courts, the publication and dissemination of the Supreme Court decisions.
司法权力
The Supreme Court has judicial powers as follows.
Power of Hearing Writ Petitions
The Supreme Court is the guardian of the 宪法. Basically, it is responsible for the protection of 人权s of the people. Legal and judicial remedies against the violation of the 基本權s are provided under the original writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The writ 司法管轄權 is commonly known as extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court.
Article 133 of the 宪法 has empowered the Supreme Court to issue writs (applicable to the respective issues) such as the writs of 人身保護令, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo warranto and 禁酒令. The writs are issued particularly in the following conditions:
Power to decide constitutionality of the law
Article 133(1) of the 宪法 confers power upon the Supreme Court to declare void either ab initio or from the date of its decision any statutory provision on the ground of inconsistency with the 宪法 or unreasonable restriction on the enjoyments of the 基本權s of the 公民
Power of Hearing Appeal
Article 133 (4) of the 宪法 has given the power to hear appeals (as specified by the law) against the final decisions of the Court of Appeal. According to section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1991 the following cases fall under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
- Cases decided by the Court of Appeal under their original jurisdiction,
- If the Court of Appeal overrules the decision of the District Court with a substantially different effect,
- Cases in which more than 10 years of imprisonment was imposed by a subordinate 法院, and
- Cases referred to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeal (i.e. in cases of sentencing for 無期徒刑 or 無期徒刑 with 沒收 of properties).
Power to Review its Own Judgments
Article 133 (4) of the 宪法 has given the power to review its own judgments as specified by the law. According to section 11 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1991 judgments delivered by the Supreme Court may be reviewed on any of the following grounds.
Power to Revise the Decisions of the Court of Appeal
Under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1991 the Supreme Court has power to revise the final decisions (which are non appeal-able) of the Court of Appeal on the following grounds.
- In case there is a serious error in the interpretation of any provision of the 宪法 or any other 法律,
- In case the decision is made in contrary to the 判決先例s or it has been misinterpreted,
- If public (right of) property was affected due to misinterpretation of evidence (in the process of formulating decision) and,
- If substantive difference in the 決斷 is deemed to have occurred due to the absence of proper legal representation, in a case where a party is a minor or woman or old or disabled or mentally incapacitated person.
Power to try Certain Cases
In accordance with Article 133 (4) of the 宪法 and section 7 of the Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court could try certain cases. Exceptionally this power is limited to hear the cases relating to contempt of the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts. Article 102(3) and s.7(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1991 has provided that the authority to 刑罚 wrongdoers with an amount of up to NRs. 10,000 or imprisonment of maximum period of one year or both if the court finds an accused is in contempt.
Benches
The judicial power of the Supreme Court is used through the composition of the various types of Benches. They are called as Single Bench, Division Bench, Full Bench and Special Bench. Jurisdictions of the different benches are as follows.
Special Bench
The Special Bench is composed of three or more 正義s.
Full Bench
The Full Bench is composed of three or more 正義s. The 司法管轄權 of the full bench is to render the final decision upon the cases which have not unanimity in the decision of the division bench or the cases which is referred to the full bench because of presence of serious issue of interpretation of 法律 or legal principles by division bench or by the Chief Justice. The chief justice may refer any cases to the full bench if he thinks the case is fit to be heard by the full bench.
Division Bench
The Bench composed by two 正義s is called division bench. Most of the cases run through this bench. The 司法管轄權 of this bench is to hear the appeal filed after the decision of the Court of Appeal, to hear the writ petition registered under the Article 133(2) of the Constitution, to make review of its own 決斷s and to make revision of the decision of the court of Appeal as specified by the 法律.
Single Bench
Single Bench is formed of a single 正義. Prima facie hearing of the writ petition, petition filed against the interim and interlocutory order of the inferior 法院, petition against the order of the Registrar concerning procedure of the cases and any other application which does not falls under the 司法管轄權 of the special, full or division bench falls under the 司法管轄權 of the single bench.
其他司法权Extra Judicial Powers
The extra judicial powers of the Supreme Court are as follows.
Power of Making Rules
The Supreme Court has the power to make rules on the procedural, managerial and administrative functions of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the District Courts. Section 11 of the Supreme Court Act, 1991 has authorized the Supreme Court to make 程序法 relating to the Supreme Court, while section 31 of the Administration of Justice Act has empowered it to make rules relating to the Court of Appeal and the District Courts. Under the said statutory authority the Supreme Court has issued the Supreme Court Rules and Court of Appeal Rules in 1991 and the District Court Rules in 1995. Rule making power is exercised by the Full Court of the Supreme Court.
Power to Formulate Judicial Policies
Full Court is the principal policy making body of the Indian 司法機構 which consist of all the 正義s of the Supreme Court. On many occasions the Supreme Court has formulated policies and developed plans and programmes towards judicial reforms and court management system. Besides, the Chief Justice and the Registrar have also key role in formulating judicial policies.
The Full Court
The Full Court is commonly known as the meeting of all the 正義s present including the Chief Justice. It is a high level policy making body of the judiciary. The Full Court is basically responsible for the formulation of policies relating judicial administration. Policy decisions formulated by the Full Court are basically carried out by the Registrar (ex-officio secretary of the Full Court) of the Supreme Court. Major functions of the Full Court are as follows :
- To recommend new legislation relating to the administration of justice and any amendment or change required in such law,
- To consider the policy issues relating to administration of 正義 and court management,
- To approve the annual report of the Supreme Court,
- To award the title of Senior Advocate, and
- To consider on matters referred to the Full Court either by the Chief Justice or any of the Justices.
Other Committees of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has other different committees which are constitute by the Supreme Court Procedure Rule. Likewise the Chief Justice has power to constitute other appropriate committee. Main objective of these committee is to make policy on court management matter and advice to the Chief Justice.
Composition of the Supreme Court (as of 2 April 2018)
- Hon. Chief Justice Mr. Om Prakash Mishra
- Hon. Justice Mr. Deepak Raj Joshi
- Hon. Justice Mr. Cholendra Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana
- Hon. Justice Mr. Deepak Kumar Karki
- Hon. Justice Mr. Kedar Prasad Chalise
- Hon. Justice Mr. Sharada Prasad Ghimire
- Hon. Justice Ms. Meera Khadka
- Hon. Justice Mr. Hari Krishna Karki
- Hon. Justice Mr. Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha
- Hon. Justice Mr. Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada
- Hon. Justice Dr. (Mr.) Ananda Mohan Bhattarai
- Hon. Justice Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha
- Hon. Justice Mr. Prakash Man Singh Raut
- Hon. Justice Ms. Sapana Malla Pradhan
- Hon. Justice Mr. Tej Bahadur K.C.
- Hon. Justice Mr. Purushottam Bhandari
- Hon. Justice Mr. Bam Kumar Shrestha
- Hon. Justice Mr. Dambar Bahadur Shahi
- Hon. Justice Mr. Tanka Bahadur Moktan
Strategic Plan of the Nepalese Judiciary
Nepalese Judiciary has second five year's strategic plan (2009-2013). This strategic plan was adopted by the full court of the Supreme Court. The Strategic Plan has defined the Vision, Mission, Values and Core Functions of the Nepalese Judiciary, which are as follows.
Vision : To establish a system of justice which is independent, competent, inexpensive, speedy, and easily accessible to the public and worthy of public trust and thereby to transform the concept of the rule of law and human rights into a living reality and thus ensure justice to all.
Mission : To impart fair and impartial justice in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the laws and the recognized principles of justice.
Values : Allegiance to the Constitution, Independence and Autonomy, Duty towards Society, Accessibility of Justice, Competent Justice, High ethical standard, Representation and Inclusiveness and Ownership.
Core Functions : Adjudication,Execution of Judgment and Supervision and Monitoring
The Plan has projected twelve area of strategic intervention which are as follows:
1: To reform case management process so as to make adjudication process effective. 2: To make execution of judgment simple, speedy and effective. 3: To develop human resources. 4: To develop infrastructure of court and manage logistics. 5: To institutionalize the application of information and media technology. 6: To strengthen inspection and supervision system. 7: Reform in security management. 8: To preserve the values of judicial independence, accountability and autonomy. 9: To institutionalize research regarding adjudication, justice system and judicial reform. 10: To strengthen and institutionalize relation with stakeholders of the justice sector. 11: Increase access to justice and increase public trust. 12: To strengthen institutional capacity of courts and tribunals.