Judicial Trust in Nepal: Demand- and Supply-Side Perspectives

Public trust and confidence in the judiciary are essential to its legitimacy and effectiveness; however, unlike other public institutions reinforced through free and fair elections, the judiciary lacks a direct electoral connection with the public, making institutional trust particularly critical. This study explores both the demand (the people who seek justice – community members and lawyers) and supply (those who are responsible for delivering justice – judiciary and judges) sides of trust in the judicial system of Nepal, drawing on qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions conducted in 2019 with key stakeholders from both demand and supply sides of the justice system. Through a thematic analysis, the research identifies patterns and concerns that shape perceptions of judicial trust. This article analyses and identifies patterns and concerns that shape perceptions of judicial trust and confidence. The findings reveal a significant trust deficit, with both cohorts – judicial actors and community members – highlighting critical issues. On the supply side, judicial actors identify political interference in judicial appointments and decision-making as major contributors undermining institutional credibility and public trust. On the demand side, community members emphasize barriers to fair access, citing lack of independence due to unfair judicial appointments, lack of transparency, and inadequate outreach, all of which contribute to perceptions of judicial ineffectiveness and partiality. For marginalized groups, including Dalits, Madhesi, Indigenous Peoples, Persons with Disabilities, and women in rural areas, reported feeling especially exclude from the justice system, describing the judiciary as distant, formalistic, and inaccessible.This study underscores the urgent need for judicial reforms that would address the concerns of both sides of the justice system. To build trust, the judiciary must prioritize greater transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. Ensuring equitable access to justice, promoting independence in judicial appointments, and improving public engagement are critical steps in restoring public confidence and ensuring the judiciary’s effectiveness in delivering fair and impartial justice for all.