RSP weighs impeachment. What does it take to remove a Supreme Court justice in Nepal?

Nepal’s ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party is considering using Parliament to address alleged misconduct in the judiciary. Its leaders describe impeachment as the possible action against justices facing controversy. They say longstanding judicial problems have become too serious to ignore.

The immediate trigger involved Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal. Details emerged that he exchanged WhatsApp messages with Inam Sapkota, who is alleged to act as a fixer in court cases, and met him at a hotel. Phuyal acknowledged the meeting. A separate document about Sapkota’s financial dealings mentioned Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, who denied knowing or contacting him.

The RSP secretariat directed its parliamentary wing to begin constitutional and legal action. The party has not decided whether to seek a special session or wait for the next regular session. Law Minister Sobita Gautam said the regular session was more likely, while the party continues consultations.

Impeachment is a constitutional and parliamentary process for removing a Supreme Court justice or chief justice from office. Nepal’s Constitution allows it when lawmakers pursue alleged serious misconduct or other grounds recognised by the constitutional process. The article presents impeachment as a way to address institutional problems through Parliament.

It is different from an ordinary criminal case. A criminal case is handled through the justice system and asks whether a person committed an offence under criminal law. Impeachment asks whether an office-holder should continue holding public office. A parliamentary finding does not automatically replace a criminal trial or establish criminal guilt.

It also differs from a disciplinary complaint. A complaint may trigger scrutiny or investigation, while impeachment requires formal parliamentary action and a large voting threshold. In this case, the RSP is discussing impeachment after reported contact between Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and alleged court fixer Inam Sapkota.

A motion begins when its proponents submit written notice to Parliament’s general secretary, or the secretary if the general secretary is absent. The notice must state the grounds and reasons. If the House is not sitting, it must include a demand to convene Parliament within 15 days.

The notice goes to the Speaker. If the House is already sitting, the Speaker must schedule discussion within 15 days of registration. If Parliament is later convened, discussion must occur at the first sitting. After discussion, the motion is referred to the Impeachment Recommendation Committee for investigation and a recommendation.

The provided article ends as the motion is being referred to that committee, so it does not give every later procedural detail. In general, the committee examines the allegations and reports back. The House then decides whether to proceed, with removal requiring support from two-thirds of all House members.

Nepal’s Constitution requires endorsement by at least two-thirds of the total House membership to remove a chief justice or Supreme Court justice. The requirement is based on the House’s full size, not merely the lawmakers present or voting on the day.

In a 275-member House, two-thirds equals 183⅓. Because votes are whole numbers, the minimum is 184 votes. This is substantially more demanding than a simple majority, which would require 138 votes if all 275 seats were counted. The threshold therefore requires support across political groupings.

The article does not state the RSP’s exact number of lawmakers, so it cannot establish whether the party can reach 184 votes by itself. It says the RSP has directed its parliamentary wing to begin the process and is still deciding whether to seek a special session or wait for the regular session.

The Impeachment Recommendation Committee’s role is to examine the allegations after the House refers a motion to it. If it finds that the allegations represent a serious constitutional violation or serious misconduct, it recommends that the House continue the impeachment process. The committee’s finding is therefore a major procedural step, not the final removal decision.

The House must then consider the committee’s recommendation under the constitutional process. The central mechanism remains a vote by the full House. At least two-thirds of the total membership must endorse the impeachment for the chief justice or Supreme Court justice to be removed.

The provided article is cut off at the point where the motion is referred to the Impeachment Recommendation Committee. It does not state the committee’s detailed powers or the exact wording of the next stage. It does establish that Parliament, rather than the committee alone, controls the final outcome.

The article describes lawmakers filing an impeachment notice, but it does not explain every alternative route for starting scrutiny. Under Nepal’s constitutional impeachment framework, the Impeachment Recommendation Committee can examine a complaint concerning a chief justice or Supreme Court justice. This gives the process a possible entry point beyond a parliamentary motion.

The complaint must concern serious wrongdoing relevant to the office. The committee’s task is not to investigate ordinary disagreement with a judgment or a judge’s unpopular decision. It must assess allegations suggesting serious constitutional violation or misconduct. Evidence could include documents, communications, financial records, witness accounts, or other material that supports the allegation.

In the current controversy, reported WhatsApp messages, a hotel meeting, and a financial-dealings document are the kinds of material being discussed publicly. The article does not say that a committee complaint has been filed, nor does it identify a complainant. The RSP has instead directed its parliamentary wing to initiate action.

Constitutions give elected lawmakers a removal role because judges exercise public power under the Constitution. A judge who commits serious misconduct cannot be beyond accountability. Parliamentary impeachment creates a formal route for addressing grave concerns while keeping the decision within a constitutional process.

The safeguard is the demanding threshold. Nepal requires at least two-thirds of the House’s total membership to remove a Supreme Court justice. The process also requires written grounds, Speaker-led scheduling, House discussion, and committee consideration. These steps make removal slower and harder than an ordinary political complaint.

The balance matters in the present dispute. The RSP says judicial irregularities can no longer be ignored, citing alleged contact between Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and court fixer Inam Sapkota. Yet the party still needs broad parliamentary support and must follow the prescribed process. That protects judicial independence while leaving a constitutional response to serious misconduct.