How chats between top court justices and a so-called fixer has cast doubt on judicial independence and propriety

The reported contact involved an outsider approaching a sitting Supreme Court justice about a case still before the court. That matters because judges are expected to decide cases independently, without instructions from political figures, business groups, or intermediaries claiming powerful connections.

On September 2, Inam Sapkota sent Phuyal a message saying the prime minister wanted Rohit Gupta to remain in custody. Gupta faced a money-laundering case at the Special Court. Phuyal later explained the court’s bail decision to Sapkota and proposed meeting him at Hotel Himalaya the next evening.

Phuyal said he met Sapkota with three other justices and denied compromising his financial, moral, or professional integrity. The article says the known information does not prove wrongdoing, but it calls for an impartial investigation into the contact, the message, and any possible breach of law or judicial conduct rules.

A judicial fixer is generally understood as a person who tries to arrange outcomes through personal access, influence, or behind-the-scenes contacts rather than formal legal arguments. The article presents Sapkota as a so-called fixer, but it does not establish whether he truly had political connections or was only claiming them.

The reported method was direct and informal. Sapkota presented himself as a representative of the prime minister and messaged Justice Hari Phuyal while Phuyal sat on the bench. He reportedly said the prime minister wanted Rohit Gupta to remain in custody. Phuyal later explained the bail decision to Sapkota and suggested meeting him.

Such contact can undermine confidence even when wrongdoing is unproven. The article asks how people claiming political connections gain access to judges and why effective institutional mechanisms do not prevent these interactions. It says an impartial investigation must establish what happened and whether any rules were violated.

The reported meeting involved Justice Hari Phuyal and three other Supreme Court justices. The article does not name all three, but Phuyal said they met Sapkota collectively. This makes the episode an institutional concern, not only a question about one judge’s conduct.

The contact centered on Rohit Gupta, a former director of Himalayan Reinsurance facing a money-laundering case at the Special Court. A bench of Phuyal and Shreekanta Paudel considered two petitions. Gupta’s wife sought his release through habeas corpus, while Gupta challenged the Special Court’s custody order.

The bench dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding that Gupta’s detention was not unlawful. In the separate petition, however, it ordered his release on Rs20 million bail, saying there were insufficient grounds to keep him in custody. The article says the available facts do not prove wrongdoing by the justices.

The concern comes from the combination of timing, subject, and claimed authority. Sapkota reportedly contacted Justice Hari Phuyal while Phuyal was sitting on a bench hearing petitions involving Rohit Gupta. He also presented himself as representing the prime minister, making the message appear connected to executive power.

Sapkota allegedly told Phuyal that the prime minister wanted Gupta to remain in custody. Yet the same bench later rejected Gupta’s habeas corpus request but granted bail in his separate petition. The reported exchange therefore involved a request about a live case, not a general discussion about the justice system.

The constitution envisages an independent and impartial judiciary. The article says independence requires protection from informal pressure, not merely formal refusal to obey the prime minister. An investigation must determine whether Sapkota had genuine connections, whether the message was an influence tactic, and whether judicial conduct rules were breached.

Courts depend on public confidence that decisions follow law and evidence rather than private access or political influence. If people believe intermediaries can approach judges about pending cases, they may doubt both the fairness of individual rulings and the integrity of the judicial institution.

The controversy includes a reported list of people for whom money was to be deposited. It reportedly named lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokhrel, then-Additional Inspector General Banshiraj Dahal, and Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma. Sharma denied involvement and said he did not know Sapkota. The article does not establish wrongdoing by Sharma, Phuyal, or the other justices.

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari says public institutions have suffered a continuing decline. The article calls for an impartial investigation that can establish facts, hold people accountable if wrongdoing is proven, and protect the reputations of those cleared. That process is important for restoring confidence.

The article describes judicial independence as protection from pressure by the executive, legislature, political parties, business groups, and other power centres. That protection must cover informal influence as well as direct instructions. Judges should be able to decide cases without private approaches shaping their judgment.

The controversy shows why safeguards matter. Sapkota reportedly contacted Phuyal during a pending case and claimed to represent the prime minister. The article asks why people claiming political connections can reach judges and why no effective institutional mechanisms prevent such interactions. It also asks whether any judicial codes of conduct were violated.

The intended safeguards include established channels, impartial judicial decision-making, and rules governing professional conduct. The article says procedures alone are not enough if the people enforcing them lack integrity. An impartial investigation should clarify the facts, test possible violations, and strengthen protection against similar informal pressure.

Separation of powers is the principle that government authority is divided among separate institutions, including the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Each has a distinct role and should not improperly control the others. The judiciary’s independence allows judges to apply law without political direction.

The article connects this principle to the reported message from Sapkota. He claimed to represent the prime minister and allegedly told Justice Phuyal that Gupta should remain in custody. Because the message concerned a case pending before the court, it raised the possibility that executive influence was reaching into judicial decision-making.

The article says the constitution envisages the judiciary as independent and impartial. That requires safeguards against both formal commands and informal pressure. Investigators must establish whether Sapkota’s claim was genuine, whether the contact affected conduct, and whether any laws or judicial codes were violated.