Nepal Supreme Court Clarifies It Is Not Replacing the Case Lottery System

The Supreme Court of Nepal has clarified that there are no active discussions or plans to replace its lottery-based system for assigning cases. The court says the process introduced under its 2021 guidelines remains in effect, despite recent media reports and social media claims suggesting otherwise.

According to the court’s spokesperson, Arjun Prasad Koirala, the system continues to operate as the official mechanism for distributing petitions and bench assignments. The clarification appears aimed at cooling down confusion around whether the court was preparing to move away from the draw-based process.

What the court actually said

The statement from the Supreme Court is straightforward: there is no current move to eliminate the lottery method. That matters because the system was introduced as a structural shift in how cases are allocated, reducing the possibility of direct case assignment by the chief justice.

The lottery model was adopted in 2021 after the Supreme Court amended its regulations and endorsed a system in which benches are formed by drawing lots. Reporting from that period described it as a way to end the chief justice’s discretion over case assignment and cause-list preparation.

Why the lottery system matters

The lottery-based method was designed to make case distribution more transparent and less centralized. Under the earlier arrangement, the chief justice played a key role in assigning benches, which critics argued concentrated too much power in one office.

With the lottery process, case allocation is handled through a draw, which was presented as a procedural safeguard for fairness and predictability. The Supreme Court’s current clarification suggests that, for now, it still sees that framework as the official one.

Why the rumors picked up

The confusion likely grew because the lottery system has been controversial from the beginning. Some legal observers have long viewed it as a temporary fix rather than a permanent reform, while others have defended it as an important check on administrative discretion.

That backdrop makes the court’s latest statement significant. By explicitly denying any ongoing plan to change the system, it is signaling that the current mechanism is not under formal review, at least based on the information released in the latest press statement.

What happens next

For now, the court says the lottery-based assignment process remains in place. Any future change would likely require a formal institutional decision rather than speculation, media reports, or online discussion.

For lawyers, litigants, and court watchers, the takeaway is simple: the Supreme Court wants the record to be clear that the current case assignment system is still active and unchanged.