RSP leaves decision on impeachment of controversial Supreme Court judges to the parliamentary party

The RSP’s parliamentary party must decide whether to pursue impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court judges connected to controversies involving intermediary Inam Sapkota. The decision matters because the party wants alleged judicial misconduct addressed through Parliament’s constitutional process, rather than handled only within the party.

The party initially discussed targeting Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal. It may later consider other judges whose names appeared during the investigation. The key example is Phuyal’s acknowledged meeting with Sapkota, alongside claims involving communications and money connected to other judges.

The parliamentary party must now determine the scope of action. It could begin with one judge or include everyone implicated so far. The RSP has also said that further proceedings could target any other judges found involved as evidence is examined.

Impeachment is a formal constitutional process for addressing alleged serious misconduct by a public official. It is not simply a party reprimand or an ordinary court case. For a judge, the process can provide a lawful route for Parliament to examine conduct that may undermine confidence in the judiciary.

In this case, the RSP wants its parliamentary party to consider impeachment proceedings against Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and possibly other judges. The party points to concerns about judicial conduct, including Phuyal’s acknowledgement that he met intermediary Inam Sapkota. Parliament would assess the matter through the procedure assigned to it.

The article says any decision reached through that parliamentary process would then be implemented. It does not specify the exact penalty or final outcome. In general constitutional practice, an approved impeachment can remove an official from office, but the applicable process and consequences depend on Nepal’s constitutional rules.

The controversy centers on intermediary Inam Sapkota and alleged links with Supreme Court judges. The article reports that Sapkota deposited money in Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s name. It also reports WhatsApp exchanges involving Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal about a case pending before the court.

Phuyal’s position became especially significant because he acknowledged meeting Sapkota. The RSP cited that acknowledgement as evidence that questions had been raised about judicial conduct. The article presents these facts as revelations and allegations connected to the investigation, not as completed findings of guilt.

The allegations have prompted the RSP to seek action through constitutional mechanisms. Its parliamentary party will decide whether to begin with Phuyal or include other judges whose names emerged. The scope could expand if examination of the evidence identifies further involvement by judges.

The RSP has 182 members in Nepal’s 275-member House of Representatives. A two-thirds majority requires 184 votes. The party is therefore two votes short of that threshold, making its parliamentary strength unusually important for any constitutional action requiring broad legislative support.

The numbers give the RSP considerable leverage in the impeachment debate. It already controls a large bloc of seats and would need only two additional votes to reach the stated two-thirds figure. That does not by itself settle whether proceedings will begin or succeed, because the parliamentary party must first decide its approach.

The party is considering whether to target one judge first or include all judges implicated so far. Its strength could shape negotiations and voting if the matter reaches Parliament. The article does not state whether other lawmakers support the RSP’s position or whether the required votes are assured.

If Parliament begins and approves impeachment proceedings, the judges would face the constitutional consequences attached to that process. The article says that any decision reached through Parliament would then be implemented. It does not describe a separate punishment, a timetable, or the exact legal effect on a judge’s position.

The immediate example is Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal, whom the RSP discussed as a possible first target. Other judges could also face proceedings if their names remain connected to the investigation and the evidence supports further action. The parliamentary party must decide how broadly to proceed.

Under the general meaning of impeachment, approval can lead to removal from public office. That consequence is established constitutional knowledge, but the article itself does not expressly state it here. It does make clear that the final outcome would follow Parliament’s constitutional process and that possible action could expand as evidence is examined.

Nepal’s Parliament is the constitutional forum because the RSP says judicial restructuring and alleged misconduct must be handled through the legislature. This gives the process a formal constitutional basis and places responsibility with elected lawmakers, rather than leaving the decision to the party secretariat alone.

The RSP’s secretariat instructed its parliamentary party to take the necessary steps. RSP spokesperson Jagadish Kharel said Parliament was the route for restructuring the entire judicial sector. A senior party official also said impeachment falls within the parliamentary party’s responsibility, so it must actively move the process forward.

This division separates political instruction from constitutional action. Party leaders can set a position and refer the matter onward, but lawmakers must decide whether to initiate proceedings and how broadly to pursue them. They may begin with one judge or include everyone implicated so far, depending on the evidence.

Constitutional systems generally give elected lawmakers a role because judges exercise public authority and must remain accountable for serious misconduct. At the same time, judicial independence protects judges from pressure over unpopular rulings. This balance matters especially when allegations involve a pending case or influential political actors.

The article illustrates that balance through the RSP’s proposed response. The party wants alleged misconduct involving judges and intermediary Inam Sapkota addressed through Parliament. Yet the parliamentary party must examine the scope of action, decide whom to include, and proceed through a constitutional mechanism rather than relying only on a party announcement.

This arrangement can make accountability public and legally structured, while limiting arbitrary political punishment. It also means evidence matters. The RSP says proceedings could extend to other judges if examination establishes involvement. The article does not describe safeguards in detail, so the broader principle comes from established constitutional practice.