Supreme Court justices, top officials drawn into Inam’s growing ‘nexus’

The alleged “nexus” is a web of contacts between Sapkota and powerful people who could affect public decisions. It matters because the reported links involve the judiciary, where even the appearance of outside influence can damage public trust. The investigation is examining whether these contacts reflected improper access or influence.

The reported network includes Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal, former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, former judges, police officers, lawmakers and senior government officials. Investigators also found communications about Rohit Gupta’s case, which was pending before the Supreme Court. Other reported material refers to alleged bank deposits connected to Sharma and Bishwaraj Pokharel.

The disclosures have prompted the Nepal Bar Association to demand an impartial, evidence-based and transparent probe. The association stressed that media reports are not proof, but said serious questions about judicial conduct cannot simply be dismissed. If wrongdoing is established, it called for legal action regardless of status.

Sapkota is described in the article as an alleged fixer who was arrested on September 27. A fixer is generally understood as someone who connects people, arrangements or influence behind the scenes. Here, the label matters because his reported contacts reached institutions that make legal, security and political decisions.

The article does not establish that Sapkota committed wrongdoing or explain a specific service he provided. It reports communications with Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal, along with earlier links to former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, former judges and dismissed Armed Police Force officer Banshiraj Dahal. Investigators also identified contacts with serving officials and lawmakers.

The investigation is therefore testing what these relationships meant. The Nepal Bar Association said allegations require evidence, impartial inquiry and due process. It also said people linked to sensitive reports should follow their codes of conduct, and wrongdoing should bring legal action regardless of position.

The reported evidence has two main parts. First, Naya Patrika published details of conversations between Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and Sapkota, including exchanges concerning Rohit Gupta, a former director of Himalayan Reinsurance. Because the case was sub judice in the Supreme Court, the communications raised questions about contact with an intermediary.

Second, details circulating on social media referred to alleged deposits into bank accounts in Nepal and the United States connected with Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and Bishwaraj Pokharel. The posts mentioned deposits totalling 198,333 in unspecified currency over three months and a request for another $7,500. The article does not independently establish the records’ authenticity.

These disclosures led to calls for an independent investigation. The Nepal Bar Association said allegations are not final proof and that everyone deserves an opportunity to respond. It also said serious public questions about judicial leadership should not be dismissed merely because they appeared in media reports.

The financial figures are significant because they form part of the allegations drawing senior judicial and political figures into scrutiny. However, the article gives incomplete monetary information. It says social media posts referred to deposits totalling 198,333 in unspecified currency, so the currency and precise value cannot be determined.

The posts reportedly connected those deposits with Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and Bishwaraj Pokharel, a Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker and former Nepal Police AIG. They referred to deposits over three months: January, November and December. The same material allegedly included a request to deposit a further $7,500.

These figures should not be treated as proven payments. The article describes them as allegations circulating on social media, and the Nepal Bar Association stressed that reported details are not final truth or proof. An impartial investigation would need to verify the records, identify the currency and establish who made or received any payment.

Improper communication with an intermediary about a pending case could lead to formal scrutiny because judicial conduct rules bar justices from meeting people seeking to influence proceedings. A finding of wrongdoing would matter not only personally, but also for confidence in the Supreme Court. The article says the Nepal Bar Association supports legal action when wrongdoing is established.

For a Supreme Court justice, removal is tied to impeachment under Article 101. At least one-quarter of House members can register a motion on grounds including misconduct, serious constitutional or legal violations, incapacity or dishonest performance of duties. An 11-member committee investigates and recommends action, while passage requires a two-thirds majority of all serving House members.

Article 101(8) says impeachment removal does not block legal action for offences committed in office. The article also reports former justice Balaram KC’s view that Parliament or the Supreme Court should investigate. No finding of wrongdoing has been established in the reported allegations.

Nepal uses different mechanisms for lower-court judges and Supreme Court justices. The Judicial Council can begin preliminary inquiries and investigate complaints against district and high court judges through a probe committee. Supreme Court justices are treated differently because the constitution links their removal from office to impeachment under Article 101.

For a Supreme Court justice, at least one-quarter of serving House members must register an impeachment motion. The grounds can include serious constitutional or legal violations, misconduct, incapacity or failure to perform official duties honestly. An 11-member Impeachment Recommendation Committee examines the allegations and can recommend impeachment after investigating them.

The full House must then pass the motion by at least a two-thirds majority of all serving members. Article 101(8) preserves the possibility of legal action for offences committed while in office. The article also reports that the Supreme Court could conduct its own inquiry, while former justice Balaram KC urged a high-level parliamentary investigation.

Judicial independence means judges should decide cases according to law and evidence, not pressure from intermediaries or powerful contacts. That principle matters especially in the Supreme Court, where decisions affect rights, government action and confidence in the legal system. The article reports that judicial conduct rules bar justices from meeting people who appear to seek influence over proceedings.

The Sapkota allegations show why the rule matters. Reported exchanges with Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal concerned Rohit Gupta’s case while it was sub judice. Former justice Balaram KC said justices should speak through their judgments, not hurried statements defending themselves. These safeguards reduce both actual interference and the appearance of it.

Due process is equally essential. The Nepal Bar Association said media allegations are not proof and that people must receive an impartial investigation and an opportunity to present their accounts. It also called for legal action if wrongdoing is proven, and protection of reputations if allegations are not substantiated.