The Parliamentary Hearings Special Committee appointed eight justices to the Supreme Court recommended by the Judicial Council after a long dispute and debate. The hearings amidst serious accusations against the justices and the Committee not blocking their appointment have raised questions on the propriety of parliamentary hearings. However, the Constituent Assembly was more focused than before on constitution-drafting. The Constituent Assembly members discussed on the issues of consensus and disagreement based on the reports prepared by various committees of the first Constituent Assembly. On the divided issues, there were not any different opinions as compared to the first Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly members expressed their opinions according to their party positions; therefore, there was no achievement besides taking ownership of the reports. The dispute within the third largest party in the Constituent Assembly UCPN (M) created turmoil, and frenzied atmosphere within UML arose due to the forthcoming party convention.

Recommendation Approved in the End
After the formation of the new government, it was being criticised from all sides for not taking the process of appointments in the constitutional bodies, the Supreme Court, ambassadors, and others issues. As the number of justices in the Supreme Court was decreasing and the number of cases kept rising, the focus was on appointment of justices. After pressure from all sides for appointment of permanent justices, the Judicial Council as per the constitutional provisions1 recommended eight candidates for parliamentary hearings2. The Judicial Council recommendations got into dispute from the beginning. It was opposed on the grounds that eight were recommended for parliamentary hearings only after Prakash Wasti and Bharat Karki who had worked in the Supreme Court had retired. Some of the nominees were accused of having controversial past. There were 27 complaints against them in the Parliamentary Hearings Special Committee