- Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal faces scrutiny over reported communications with an intermediary regarding a businessman’s bail and potential impeachment.
- The brief detention of journalists by Nepal Police has sparked widespread concerns regarding press freedom and unauthorized newsroom raids.
- The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party is under pressure to address judicial ethics and police conduct while maintaining institutional independence.
- Unverified financial records involving top officials have prompted demands for transparent, independent forensic investigations to ensure public accountability.
Kathmandu, Nepal: A series of controversies involving the judiciary, the Nepal Police, and the brief detention of journalists has placed the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) under growing pressure. The rapid succession of events has exposed strains in government–party coordination while raising fundamental questions regarding the administration’s commitment to institutional independence.
The controversy began with reported communications between Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and an intermediary, Inam Sapkota. The issue has since expanded to encompass unverified financial records, leadership questions within the police force, controversial law enforcement actions against media workers, and discussions surrounding potential impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court justices.
While the core allegations remain under scrutiny, the government’s response is fast becoming a key test of its capacity to uphold public accountability without allowing political interests to compromise independent state institutions.
Judicial Controversy Raises Critical Questions
The central judicial dispute revolves around reported WhatsApp exchanges between Justice Phuyal and Sapkota. Sapkota allegedly requested that the justice dismiss a habeas corpus petition concerning businessman Rohit Gupta, invoking the name of Prime Minister Balendra Shah while making the appeal.
Phuyal later reportedly messaged Sapkota that the court had found sufficient grounds to release Gupta on a bail of Rs 20 million. On September 2, a joint bench comprising Phuyal and Justice Shreekanta Poudel formally ordered Gupta’s release on bail, overturning an earlier decision by the Special Court to retain him in custody.
The communication logs further indicate that Phuyal proposed meeting Sapkota at Hotel Himalaya. While Phuyal has publicly acknowledged communicating with and meeting Sapkota, he strongly denies any financial impropriety or attempts to improperly influence judicial decisions.
Phuyal stated that Sapkota approached several judges claiming to represent the Prime Minister’s Office while offering assurances against potential impeachment. According to Phuyal, he and fellow justices grew suspicious of Sapkota’s claims and subsequently alerted the Prime Minister’s Office regarding his activities.
While these disclosures raise critical questions about why a sitting Supreme Court justice maintained contact with an intermediary discussing a pending case, they do not conclusively establish that Sapkota influenced the ruling. Notably, the bench granted bail rather than the full case dismissal Sapkota had reportedly requested.
Unverified Financial Records Widen the Scope
The investigation deepened after documents retrieved from Sapkota’s mobile phone reportedly listed names and financial figures associated with Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, RSP lawmaker and former police official Bishwaraj Pokharel, and senior Armed Police Force officer Banshi Raj Dahal.
One set of retrieved records reportedly details payments totaling 198,333 over a three-month period, while additional entries note financial transfers to accounts located in Nepal and the United States. However, the specific currencies, transactional purposes, and overall authenticity of these records have yet to be independently verified.
Both Chief Justice Sharma and lawmaker Pokharel have denied any links to Sapkota. Legal experts emphasize that the appearance of their names within unverified digital files does not constitute proof of financial wrongdoing, noting that the records require rigorous independent forensic analysis.
Supreme Court Faces Mounting Pressure to Act
In response to the expanding revelations, Chief Justice Sharma convened a full-court meeting on October 30, attended by 14 of the Supreme Court’s 16 sitting justices.
The session addressed the reported contacts with Sapkota, the allegations involving the chief justice, ongoing disagreements over the composition of the Constitutional Bench, and potential breaches of judicial ethics. During the session, Phuyal formally briefed his colleagues on his interactions with Sapkota.
Although several justices advocated for the formation of an internal investigation committee led by a sitting supreme court judge, the meeting concluded without an official decision to establish a probe panel.
Consequently, the judiciary faces a significant credibility challenge. Legal scholars stress that safeguarding judicial independence must not serve as a shield against legitimate ethical oversight. Without a transparent investigative mechanism and clear findings, the ongoing uncertainty threatens to further erode public trust in the court system.
Police Leadership and Press Freedom Under Fire
The fallout has also placed Nepal Police Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki in the public spotlight. Unconfirmed reports suggest that internal political pressure was exerted on Karki to resign over alleged communications with Sapkota; however, no official announcement regarding his status has been issued.
Concurrently, a parliamentary subcommittee is reviewing procurement practices following allegations surrounding the quality of uniforms supplied to election police, the Nepal Police, and the Armed Police Force. Security agencies submitted required documentation to the subcommittee on October 29, with a deadline set for November 16 to complete a preliminary report.
Tensions escalated on October 30 when plainclothes police officers entered several newsrooms in Kathmandu and detained three journalists: Bishwamani Subedi (Nepal Press), Shobharaj Baral (Motive News), and Dhiraj Basnet (DNA Khabar). Officers also attempted to detain Navaraj Mainali (Naya Patrika) and visited the offices of Diyo Post.
All three detained journalists were released late that evening. A police spokesperson stated that the Cyber Bureau had summoned the journalists to gather information regarding recent reporting and digital messaging concerning police operations. Conversely, the Prime Minister’s Office released a statement clarifying that it had no prior knowledge of the law enforcement actions and that Prime Minister Shah directly ordered the journalists' immediate release upon learning of the incident.
Given that these detentions coincided with sensitive reporting on police leadership and the Phuyal–Sapkota communications, media rights organizations have expressed severe concern over potential press intimidation. Media watchdogs maintain that complaints regarding inaccurate reporting must strictly adhere to established regulatory procedures, warning that unauthorized newsroom raids directly threaten constitutional guarantees of press freedom.
The government faces growing calls to clarify who authorized the police actions and whether statutory procedure was followed, as the prompt release of the journalists has not fully resolved public concern.
High-Level Political Meetings and Impeachment Strategy
Against this backdrop, public attention has turned to the dynamics between RSP Chair Rabi Lamichhane and Prime Minister Balendra Shah. The two leaders engaged in a four-hour private meeting at Lamichhane’s Hattigauda residence on October 28.
According to political and security sources, discussions focused on coalition coordination, law enforcement appointments, pending legislation, and Lamichhane’s recent visit to India. Neither official has publicly detailed the meeting's specific outcomes, leaving reports of policy disagreements unverified.
While political consultation between coalition leaders is standard practice, governance analysts emphasize that critical decisions regarding the judiciary, police leadership, and public administration must strictly adhere to formal institutional frameworks rather than informal political compromises.
Simultaneously, the RSP Secretariat has formally referred the issue of potential judicial impeachment proceedings to its parliamentary party. RSP Spokesperson Jagadish Kharel affirmed that Parliament remains the appropriate constitutional venue to address judicial integrity concerns.
Under Article 101 of the Constitution of Nepal, an impeachment motion against a Supreme Court justice requires the sponsorship of at least one-fourth of the total members of the House of Representatives, with final adoption requiring a two-thirds majority. The ruling RSP holds 182 seats in the 275-member chamber.
Party officials note that referring the matter for parliamentary consideration does not guarantee that a formal motion will be filed. Constitutional experts caution that impeachment proceedings must rest on verifiable evidence and strict adherence to constitutional law, rather than being utilized for political expediency.
Institutional Accountability as a Test of Governance
The unfolding events have highlighted broader systemic challenges: key public institutions are confronting significant scrutiny over internal integrity, while political leadership is tasked with proving that formal inquiries remain free from partisan influence.
Moving forward, the Supreme Court must decisively address ethical concerns surrounding judicial conduct, police leadership must provide a transparent accounting of newsroom detentions, and the parliamentary subcommittee must deliver an objective assessment of security procurement practices. Furthermore, any financial claims involving public officials require thorough, independent forensic verification.
For the Rastriya Swatantra Party, the primary challenge remains ensuring that short-term political strategy does not dictate institutional oversight. To maintain public confidence, legal procedures must be applied consistently and transparently across all branches of government.
Ultimately, the government's long-term credibility will depend not on public assurances, but on its tangible commitment to independent oversight, procedural clarity, and equal accountability under the law.
