The first is that the delay in establishing the Supreme Court was deliberate. It was meant to make the “… new democratic institutions learn to work together in harmony, and with unity of purpose, in the interest of the Nation and People.”

The second is that, His Majesty the King has devolved his authority and created an even more transparent process of establishing the Supreme Court. Though Article 21, Section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the Druk Gyalpo to appoint the Chief Justice of Bhutan in consultation with the National Judicial Commission, His Majesty’s kasho empowers the Royal Commission to recommend “…one person to assume the post of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

Well protected?

On 9 June, Kuensel reported that the selection of the new DDC secretary may have violated the RCSC’s position classification system. If this is the case, RCSC should look into it.

I have no problem about a member of the judiciary applying of a civil service post, and the RCSC accepting that person’s candidature, or selecting that person. No problem that is, as long as both the Judiciary’s rules and the RCSC’s rules are followed.

So the RCSC may wish to ensure that due process was followed.

RCSC should also consider if it has infringed on the independence of the Judiciary. Earlier the RCSC had issued a “transfer and appointment order” transferring a senior judge out of the judiciary and appointing him as a secretary in the civil service. But, according to the Constitution and related laws, RCSC does not have administrative powers on the Judiciary. So it cannot order the transfer of a judge. Doing so would compromise the independence of the Judiciary. And that, put simply, is very dangerous.

So the RCSC must retract its “order”. And apologize.

Deo recently made one such comment. This is what deo wrote in CDG unconstitutional: “OL, since you seem to have an opinion on everything, and has become a self-appointed legal expert, what is your take on the Jemina case? In your opinion, who is correct – ACC or high court? Both cannot be right.”

I can’t say that I have an opinion on everything. But I do admit to having opinions on some things, including issues concerning the law though I’m no legal expert. And I hope that my opinions matter, even if you disagree with them. As far as your opinions are concerned – I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – I take them seriously. They matter.

Now about the Bjemina case: who’s correct, ACC or High Court? The High Court, without a doubt. After all, our courts are the supreme authority to interpret and apply the laws of our land. We may not agree with their interpretation, but we are bound to accept them. That is what the rule of law is about.

Article 21.1 of the Constitution: The Judiciary shall safeguard, uphold, and administer Justice fairly and independently without fear, favour, or undue delay in accordance with the Rule of Law to inspire trust and confidence and to enhance access to Justice.

So as long as the High Court is faithful to the Constitution – and as far as I know, we have no reason to doubt that – we must accept that they are correct. And that their interpretation of the law prevails over everybody else’s.

But what if our courts, guardians of the law, themselves choose to deliberately ignore the law? Or break the law? Article 32 of the Constitution outlines the procedure to impeach the Chief Justices and Drangpons of the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Back to the Bjemina case: I don’t know the details of the case, and I haven’t studied the relevant laws. So my trust and confidence in the Judiciary instinctively makes me believe that they are correct. But I suspect that Deo feels otherwise. It would be good to know why.

But now what? Constitutional experts argue that only the Supreme Court, as the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution, can decide if the cabinet’s action on the ACC’s report, or lack thereof, is unconstitutional. And that the differences between the ACC and the Cabinet cannot be resolved until the Supreme Court is established. So there seems to be a growing consensus that nothing much can be done for now.

The experts are no doubt, correct. Except that ACC’s corruption charges, if any, are against a few individuals, not against the Cabinet. So those charges, if any, should be dispatched to the District Court.

Otherwise, with time, the gate will eventually close.