Four issues raised at Supreme Court’s Friday full-court meeting

The Friday full-court meeting examined four connected issues arising from the Inam Sapkota controversy. Justices discussed their contacts with Sapkota, the dispute over forming the Constitutional Bench, alleged financial dealings in which the chief justice’s name was invoked, and possible violations of judicial conduct rules. The issues matter because they have already become public.

Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal described WhatsApp exchanges with Sapkota and a meeting at Hotel Himalaya. He said a message had appeared to come from the prime minister and that Sapkota approached him through a relative. Phuyal denied compromising judicial propriety and offered to cooperate with an investigation.

Other justices urged the court to create a committee led by a sitting justice. They also called for agreement on the Constitutional Bench dispute and a response to allegations involving Sharma. The court has not yet clearly settled the committee’s legal basis or mechanism.

The article identifies Inam Sapkota as an alleged middleman connected to the controversy, but it does not provide a fuller biography or clearly define whom he allegedly represented. His contacts with Supreme Court justices became controversial because they raised questions about whether judicial propriety or the administration of justice could have been compromised.

Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal said Sapkota approached him through a relative. Phuyal also described WhatsApp exchanges and a meeting at Hotel Himalaya. He said he received a message purportedly sent on behalf of the prime minister, communicated with Sapkota, and had no improper intention. He offered to provide relevant details.

The controversy is now public rather than purely internal. Justices said the court should establish what happened, including the purpose and context of the contacts. The article also links the broader dispute to alleged financial dealings invoking Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s name. It does not establish that wrongdoing occurred.

Fourteen of the Supreme Court’s 16 justices attended the Friday full-court meeting. Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Abdul Ajiz Musalman were absent because both were abroad. The attendance gave the meeting broad representation from the court and showed that the discussion concerned the institution as a whole.

The meeting occurred before the morning lottery that assigns cases to benches. Several justices spoke, including Hari Prasad Phuyal, Nityananda Pandeya, Meghraj Pokhrel, Mahesh Sharma Poudel, Shreekanta Poudel, and Saranga Subedi. Phuyal explained his contacts with Sapkota, while others urged an investigation and a resolution of the Constitutional Bench dispute.

Attendance alone does not prove that every justice agreed on the response. However, the high participation supports the article’s description of a major institutional concern. Justices warned that silence could cause questions aimed at a few judges to spread to the entire court and damage public trust.

A Constitutional Bench is a special group of Supreme Court justices assigned to hear cases involving constitutional questions. Such a bench matters because its composition and formation can affect how major constitutional disputes are considered. The article identifies a dispute over the bench’s formation but does not explain the exact legal rule, competing proposals, or case involved.

During the meeting, justices called for an agreement on the Constitutional Bench dispute. They warned that it should not grow into a prolonged public controversy or what some described as a media trial. The issue was discussed alongside WhatsApp exchanges, the Hotel Himalaya meeting, and allegations involving the chief justice.

The immediate reality is that the court had not publicly resolved the disagreement by the time of the meeting. Justices wanted a common position based on established facts. Without clarification, the dispute could deepen reputational concerns and make the court’s internal disagreements more visible to the public.

The justices proposed an internal investigation committee because the controversy had become public and could no longer be treated as a private court matter. A committee led by a sitting justice could gather information, examine the competing claims, and help the Supreme Court adopt a common response based on verified facts.

The proposed investigation would address several specific questions. These include the WhatsApp exchanges involving Sapkota, the meeting at Hotel Himalaya, and the circumstances surrounding the Constitutional Bench’s formation. It would also examine alleged financial dealings in which Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s name was invoked and consider whether judicial conduct rules were violated.

Most participants broadly supported the Supreme Court initiating an investigation. However, one justice said no one clearly explained the legal basis or mechanism for creating the committee. The proposal was to establish it through a full-court decision, but the article does not report that the committee had already been formed.

The main risk is institutional damage. The justices said unresolved public questions could harm the judiciary’s reputation and reduce public trust. They also warned that allegations initially aimed at a few justices might eventually be directed at the entire Supreme Court if the institution remained silent.

The article identifies several unresolved matters that could drive this damage. They include justices’ WhatsApp exchanges and meeting with Sapkota, the Constitutional Bench dispute, allegations involving Sharma, and possible breaches of judicial conduct rules. Because media reports have already publicised the controversy, the court can no longer handle it only as an internal matter.

The proposed response is an investigation led by a sitting justice and a common position agreed by the full court. The article does not report a final decision or finding. If the court acts quickly and establishes the facts, it may address the questions directly; continued uncertainty could prolong controversy and allegations of a media trial.

Judicial conduct rules are standards that guide judges’ behavior, including avoiding conflicts, improper contacts, and actions that could undermine impartiality. Judicial independence means judges should decide cases without improper pressure from political actors or private interests. Both principles matter because courts need freedom to judge, while also showing that their freedom is not a license for undisclosed or improper conduct.

In this case, the justices discussed possible conduct-rule violations and contacts with Inam Sapkota. Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal said he received a message purportedly sent on behalf of the prime minister and later met Sapkota at Hotel Himalaya. He denied improper intentions and offered to cooperate with an investigation. These facts illustrate why clear standards and fact-finding matter.

The article reports that justices wanted an internal investigation and a common response. Such a process could clarify what happened without assuming guilt. It could also help protect judicial independence by addressing public concerns through the court’s own procedures and preserving confidence in impartial justice.