Supreme Court leaves inquiry into justices linked to alleged fixer to Parliament

The Supreme Court’s full court decided not to create an internal committee to investigate allegations involving its own members. It asked the relevant authorities to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry under the Constitution and existing laws. The decision matters because it transfers responsibility away from the court itself.

The controversy concerns alleged contacts with judicial fixer Inam Sapkota. Justice Hari Phuyal acknowledged WhatsApp exchanges with Sapkota and a meeting at Hotel Himalaya involving Phuyal, other justices and Sapkota. Financial transactions linked to Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma also surfaced.

The court’s statement did not explicitly recommend impeachment. However, constitutional experts said “relevant authorities” likely means Parliament, because no other institution is authorised to investigate the Chief Justice or Supreme Court justices. Parliament may therefore become responsible for establishing the facts through its constitutional procedures.

Impeachment is a constitutional parliamentary process used to investigate allegations against high officials and decide whether removal is warranted. For the Chief Justice and Supreme Court justices, Article 101 of Nepal’s Constitution provides the relevant framework. It matters because allegations against judges must be handled through a legally authorised process, rather than informal pressure or an inquiry controlled by the judges concerned.

The article explains the basic mechanism. An impeachment motion is first registered in the House of Representatives. After registration, Parliament can begin its process of investigation and recommendations. The process is therefore intended to establish facts and assess the allegations through constitutional procedures.

The Supreme Court did not directly demand impeachment. Its call for an impartial investigation by the “relevant authorities,” combined with Article 101, has led constitutional experts to identify Parliament as the institution likely to act. The ruling RSP has already instructed its parliamentary party to pursue impeachment proceedings.

Registration of an impeachment motion is the formal trigger for Parliament’s constitutional process concerning a Supreme Court justice. The article says that once the motion is registered in the House of Representatives, the parliamentary process for investigation and recommendations can begin. This moves the matter from public allegations toward an authorised institutional examination.

The process is important because the Supreme Court’s full court declined to investigate its own members. Former justice Ishwar Khatiwada said Parliament would presumably consider justice, evidence and law while establishing the facts. The article does not describe later stages or state what recommendation Parliament must ultimately make.

The immediate political context is significant. The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party instructed its parliamentary party to initiate impeachment proceedings against judges linked to the controversy. The Supreme Court’s statement did not explicitly call for impeachment, but its reference to an investigation under the Constitution appears to leave the next move with Parliament.

The Supreme Court asked the “relevant authorities” to investigate, but it did not name an institution. Constitutional experts read that wording as a reference to Parliament because the Constitution provides a parliamentary impeachment route for the Chief Justice and Supreme Court justices. This makes the phrase consequential, even though the court did not explicitly recommend impeachment.

Article 101 provides for impeachment. Once a motion is registered in the House of Representatives, Parliament can begin investigating and making recommendations. Senior advocate Purnaman Shakya said the Judicial Council or Supreme Court could have investigated, but appeared unwilling to do so. He said the matter now appears to fall within Parliament’s jurisdiction.

The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party has already directed its parliamentary party to initiate impeachment proceedings. The court’s statement therefore aligns with a parliamentary pathway without formally ordering it. Parliament is expected to determine how the reported messages, meetings and financial transactions should be examined.

The allegations extend across several members of the judiciary and involve different forms of reported evidence. They concern possible contacts with alleged judicial fixer Inam Sapkota. The disclosures have raised questions about judicial conduct, judicial independence and whether intermediaries may influence the administration of justice.

The clearest reported example involves Justice Hari Phuyal. Details emerged of WhatsApp conversations between Phuyal and Sapkota. Phuyal acknowledged exchanging messages and confirmed that he and other justices met Sapkota at Hotel Himalaya. The article also reports that financial transactions linked to Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma surfaced soon afterward.

These reports do not establish wrongdoing by themselves. They explain why the full court called for an independent and impartial investigation. The scope includes communications, meetings and financial records involving more than one judicial figure. Parliament is now in focus as the institution that may examine the evidence and establish the facts.

A conflict of interest can arise when an institution investigates people who belong to that same institution, especially when its senior members may be connected to the allegations. The concern is not proof of guilt. It is that an internal process could appear partial or lack public confidence. That is why an independent inquiry matters here.

The full court discussed allegations involving its own colleagues but decided against forming an internal investigation committee. The controversy includes Justice Hari Phuyal’s acknowledged WhatsApp exchanges with Inam Sapkota, a meeting involving Phuyal and other justices, and financial transactions linked to Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma.

Senior advocate Purnaman Shakya said the Judicial Council or Supreme Court could have investigated, but appeared unwilling to do so. Former justice Balaram KC criticised the court’s statement for not clearly identifying the investigator. The court instead urged relevant authorities to conduct an impartial inquiry under constitutional and legal rules.

Judicial independence means judges should administer justice without improper influence from intermediaries or outside interests. It matters because people must trust that court decisions are based on law and evidence. The reported contacts in this case have therefore raised questions about judicial conduct and the independence of the judiciary.

The article reports WhatsApp exchanges between Justice Hari Phuyal and alleged fixer Inam Sapkota. Phuyal also confirmed a meeting at Hotel Himalaya involving himself, other justices and Sapkota. Financial transactions linked to Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma later surfaced. These facts prompted concern about possible links between judges and Sapkota.

The reports do not by themselves prove that justice was influenced. They do explain why an independent investigation is being demanded. The Supreme Court called for an impartial inquiry under the Constitution and law, while Parliament has emerged as the likely institution to examine the allegations and establish what happened.