Phuyal says alleged fixer invoked PM’s name to approach justices

Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal alleged that Inam Sapkota approached him and other justices by claiming to represent Prime Minister Balendra Shah. Sapkota allegedly offered reassurance that the judges would be protected from impeachment because of his government connections. He also claimed influence with the ruling party chair, the police chief, and the army chief.

The approach changed when Sapkota began raising pending court cases. Phuyal said Sapkota discussed a case involving a controversial insurance-sector appointee and later raised another case through messages. Sapkota also allegedly showed special interest in a Nepali Congress-related case.

The judges became suspicious after comparing their experiences. Phuyal said they sent Sapkota’s communications, photograph, and phone number to the prime minister’s office and the army chief’s secretariat. He denied financial dealings and called for a thorough investigation.

A judicial fixer is someone who presents themselves as a go-between for lawyers, politicians, officials, or litigants and judges. The person may claim to have special access and offer to influence a case. This matters because courts depend on judges deciding cases independently, not through private channels.

In this account, Sapkota allegedly said he worked for Prime Minister Balendra Shah and could protect judges from impeachment. He later raised pending cases and sent a message urging a bench to keep businessman Rohit Gupta in detention. These actions illustrate how claimed political access can become pressure.

The article does not establish that Sapkota actually controlled decisions. It reports Phuyal’s allegations and says the judges grew suspicious, compared messages, and reported him. A thorough investigation was sought to determine whether anyone committed wrongdoing.

The justices were worried because there was talk of filing impeachment motions against Phuyal and several other judges. That anxiety made Sapkota’s claimed access to the newly formed government seem potentially useful. Phuyal acknowledged that the judges initially viewed him as a possible channel to Prime Minister Balendra Shah.

Sapkota introduced himself as someone working for Shah. He also claimed to be a medical doctor from a neighboring country who secretly worked at an embassy. He said he could reach the ruling party chair, the inspector general of police, and the chief of army staff.

According to Phuyal, Sapkota promised that the justices would not face impeachment because of his government connections. He also claimed to have helped make Manoj Kumar Sharma chief justice. The judges later grew suspicious and compared their contacts with him.

Phuyal described Sapkota’s alleged outreach as broader than a single approach to him. He said several other Supreme Court justices were contacted. He also said judges at the Special Court and high courts had been approached.

The alleged mechanism was personal contact followed by claimed political influence. Sapkota reportedly used acquaintances and a relative to establish contact with Phuyal. He presented himself as connected to the prime minister and other senior officials, then later raised issues involving pending cases.

The judges did not initially know the full scale of the contact. Phuyal said they discovered the pattern only after sharing their experiences. Other judges and court officials reportedly received similar messages. The account therefore points to outreach across multiple levels of the judiciary, while the article does not provide an exact number of judges contacted.

The Gupta case shows the alleged pressure becoming specific. Rohit Gupta’s detention was being challenged through a habeas corpus petition and another petition against a Special Court remand order. Phuyal said Sapkota messaged him after he entered the courtroom.

The message allegedly invoked Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s name and urged the bench to dismiss Gupta’s petition and keep him in custody. Phuyal saw it only after returning home because he usually left his phone outside the courtroom. The bench nevertheless found no grounds to continue detention.

Gupta was ordered released on bail of Rs20 million. Phuyal said other businessmen, including Shekhar Golchha, had previously received bail in the same case, and the file indicated Gupta had a lesser degree of responsibility. The outcome did not follow Sapkota’s alleged request.

The judges sent Sapkota’s photograph, phone number, and communications after they became suspicious of his approach. His early conversations had seemed unremarkable, but he later raised pending cases and sent messages that some judges experienced as pressure.

Phuyal said the judges compared notes and tried to verify Sapkota’s claims. They also met him at Hotel Himalaya after wondering whether he genuinely carried a message from the prime minister. At that meeting, Sapkota allegedly said the prime minister was unhappy with them and impeachment proceedings would proceed.

The reported details went to the prime minister’s office and the army chief’s secretariat. The purpose was to alert senior state offices and support scrutiny of Sapkota’s claims. Phuyal called for a thorough investigation and said he was prepared to face action if wrongdoing were established.

Judicial independence requires judges to decide pending cases without instructions from political leaders or their alleged intermediaries. Invoking a prime minister’s name during case discussions can suggest that executive power is being used to influence a court. Even an unverified claim can damage confidence in fair decision-making.

The article gives a concrete example. Sapkota allegedly messaged Phuyal after he entered the courtroom, urging the bench to dismiss Rohit Gupta’s petition and keep him detained. Phuyal said the message invoked the prime minister’s name. The bench instead ordered Gupta released on Rs20 million bail.

The judges’ later suspicion shows the broader risk. They compared contacts, met Sapkota, and reported his details to senior offices. Phuyal denied improper arrangements and requested investigation. The allegations therefore raise questions about political pressure, court integrity, and the need to establish facts through investigation.