Explained: The leaked WhatsApp chats that have shaken Nepal’s judiciary

The leaked exchange concerns Rohit Gupta’s habeas corpus petition and raises questions about outside influence on a pending case. Sapkota sent Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal a screenshot of the petition and urged him to stop the matter. He reportedly invoked Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s interest, asking that the petition be dismissed.

Phuyal replied hours later that there were grounds to release Gupta. He said the court had ordered Gupta to post Rs20 million in bail. Phuyal also shared a link to the order and suggested meeting Sapkota at Hotel Himalaya the following evening. The messages therefore show both a request about the case and a judge’s direct communication with the requester.

Phuyal says he did not follow Sapkota’s request and that the bail decision rested on the case’s merits. Still, the exchange has intensified scrutiny because Phuyal appeared to explain the bench’s decision to someone with an interest in the outcome. It also matters because Phuyal later heard Sapkota’s wife’s detention challenge.

Inam Sapkota is a 30-year-old man under police scrutiny after investigators found repeated calls between him and former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. Police detained him at Tribhuvan International Airport on September 27 while he was preparing to travel to India. He is accused of using relationships with powerful people to influence state institutions.

Investigators reportedly found messages and other communications involving serving and former judges, senior police officials, politicians, lawmakers and lawyers. They suspect Sapkota acted as an intermediary for officials seeking promotions and for people seeking favourable results in court cases. His reported links with Rana, businessman Deepak Bhatta and other influential figures broadened the inquiry.

The alleged mechanism was access: Sapkota reportedly connected people seeking decisions or appointments with officials able to affect them. Police are also examining possible money-laundering links. The investigation remains focused on his communications, contacts and financial connections. The article does not establish that every person mentioned in his devices participated in wrongdoing.

A habeas corpus petition is a legal request for a court to examine a person’s detention. Its purpose is to test whether the detention has a lawful basis and, where appropriate, order release. That makes such petitions especially sensitive because they directly affect personal liberty and require a court to assess the state’s justification.

In Gupta’s case, Sapkota sent Phuyal a screenshot of the businessman’s petition and asked for it to be dismissed. Phuyal replied that there were grounds to release Gupta and said the court ordered him to post Rs20 million in bail. The exchange matters because a sitting justice discussed a pending liberty case with an alleged fixer.

The same legal procedure later involved Sapkota’s wife, who filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention. Phuyal sat on the bench that rejected it on October 9, alongside Justice Sunil Pokharel. This connection intensified concerns about whether private contacts could affect judicial impartiality.

The reported network appears broad because Sapkota’s devices contained communications with people across several powerful institutions. Investigators reportedly identified contacts involving serving and former judges, senior police officials, politicians, lawmakers and lawyers. That range matters because it suggests the alleged access was not confined to one court or one official.

The article gives several concrete links. Police found repeated calls between Sapkota and former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. Investigators also examined his reported connections with businessman Deepak Bhatta and other influential figures. Separate records reportedly referred to deposits into accounts associated with Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokharel and senior police officer Banshiraj Dahal.

The reported communications point to possible influence over promotions, court outcomes and institutional decisions. Police are also examining possible money-laundering links. However, the article does not establish that everyone named in the communications took part in wrongdoing. The investigation’s scope shows why the controversy has spread beyond one leaked exchange.

Judicial independence depends not only on correct decisions but also on visible freedom from improper pressure. When a judge privately communicates with an alleged fixer about a pending case, observers may question whether the court is responding to law or to personal and political connections. That doubt can weaken confidence in equal treatment.

Here, Sapkota reportedly asked Phuyal to dismiss Gupta’s petition and referred to Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s interest. Phuyal later shared the court order, explained that Gupta had grounds for release and proposed a hotel meeting. Phuyal says the decision was based on the case’s merits and denies any improper arrangement, but the contact itself remains troubling.

Public confidence can suffer even if no ruling was actually changed. The article highlights unanswered questions about why Phuyal trusted Sapkota’s claimed political role, why the hotel meeting seemed appropriate and what was discussed. The later detention case involving Sapkota’s wife adds to concerns about appearance, impartiality and accountability.

The controversy now involves Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma because separate documents reportedly recovered from Sapkota’s phone mention deposits into accounts associated with Sharma. The same records refer to lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokharel and senior police officer Banshiraj Dahal. They reportedly show deposits totalling 198,333 over three months and request a further $7,500.

The reported payment mechanism involved accounts held by Sapkota’s relatives. Sharma has denied knowing Sapkota or having any direct or indirect contact with him. Dahal was dismissed after an investigation into his communications with Sapkota and a late-night visit to former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. These details extend the issue beyond Phuyal’s messages.

The fallout reaches senior officials because the records and contacts raise questions about possible financial or institutional influence. The article does not prove that Sharma received improper payments or that every named person acted unlawfully. But the reported links have increased scrutiny of the judiciary, police and political figures connected to Sapkota.

The rule of law requires courts to decide cases through law and evidence, not political instructions, private payments or personal connections. Core safeguards generally include judicial independence, transparent procedures, written reasons, conflict disclosures and recusal when a judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. These protections serve both fairness and public trust.

In this controversy, the reported safeguards appear strained by direct messages about a pending case and a proposed meeting outside court. A judge should normally rely on the formal record, not an alleged intermediary’s claim to represent the prime minister. Clear records, open hearings and reasoned orders can help show how a decision was reached. Independent oversight can examine suspected misconduct.

The article reports that Phuyal and other justices eventually reported concerns about Sapkota to senior officials. It also describes police investigations into communications and possible money laundering. Those processes matter because allegations must be tested fairly. Strong safeguards cannot prevent every attempted influence, but they can expose it, limit its effect and preserve confidence in judicial independence.