Supreme Court to decide on ousted IG Karki’s writ petition today

The Supreme Court is being asked to examine whether the Cabinet lawfully removed Dan Bahadur Karki as inspector general of police. Karki argues that his legally prescribed term had not ended and that the government could not avoid removal safeguards by appointing him to another post. The dispute matters because it concerns both due process and who may lawfully command Nepal Police.

Karki’s petition challenges the November 4 Cabinet decision. It seeks to cancel his appointment as the prime minister’s special security adviser, restore him as IG, and invalidate KC’s appointment. It also asks for an interim order preventing KC from exercising IG powers while the case continues. Karki says two officers exercising authority at IG level could confuse the chain of command.

The administration initially deferred registration to study the filing. Registrar Thagindra Kattel said a decision would come Friday. If registered, the petition is likely to be heard after Tihar, when the court reopens. The court could preserve the status quo or allow KC to continue temporarily.

A writ petition is a formal court filing that asks the Supreme Court to examine whether a public decision or action is lawful. It can request remedies such as restoring someone to office, stopping an official from acting, or requiring a public authority to follow the law. In Karki’s case, the petition challenges his removal and asks for orders affecting both Karki and KC.

Registration is the court’s administrative acceptance of the filing for the judicial process. The registrar first checks and studies the document before deciding whether it can be registered. The article says Registrar Thagindra Kattel deferred the decision because the plea needed examination. This step matters because an unregistered petition cannot proceed to listing or a hearing.

Kattel said the administration would decide on Friday. If registered, the case would be listed only after the Tihar holidays and the court’s reopening. A bench could then consider an interim order, summon both sides, or issue a show-cause order.

Karki was appointed inspector general in November 2025 after Chandra Kuber Khapung retired. Because Karki had joined the police in March 1998, the article reports that he was expected to remain in office until March 2028. That expected end date is central to his legal challenge because he says the government ended his service prematurely.

The Cabinet removed him on November 4 and appointed him the prime minister’s special security adviser. Additional Inspector General Manoj Kumar KC became the new police chief and assumed office the following Wednesday. Counting from November 2026 to March 2028, about 16 months of the expected period remained. The article does not separately state the exact number of months remaining.

Karki asks the court to keep him in office until the term prescribed by Rule 127 of the Nepal Police Regulations, 2014, is complete. He also asks the government to avoid removing, transferring, or retiring him before that point without due process. The court’s decision could determine whether that remaining period is restored.

An interim order is a temporary direction issued while the court is still deciding the main legal dispute. Karki asks for an order suspending the November 4 Cabinet decision and related actions. He wants permission to continue as inspector general and wants KC restrained from acting in that capacity. Such an order could immediately change the police leadership arrangement.

The article describes one possible outcome: a bench could maintain the status quo and summon both sides. In that situation, Karki would return to his former role, while KC could not function as IG. The order would not necessarily be the final judgment. It would protect the disputed position while the court examines the legal arguments.

The court could choose another route. It might issue a show-cause order and call both sides to discuss an interim arrangement. KC could then continue as police chief temporarily. The dispute matters because Karki says two officers exercising IG-level authority could create confusion in the chain of command.

The Kharel case involved a serving police chief who was transferred to the National Investigation Department while another officer was appointed in his place. The dispute became a test of whether the government could remove an inspector general who remained legally qualified to serve. Karki cites the case because his petition raises a similar concern about premature replacement.

In 1997, the government transferred former IG Achyut Krishna Kharel and appointed Dhruba Bahadur Pradhan as police chief. Kharel challenged the move. An incoming government later reinstated Kharel and made Pradhan an adviser, while the court case had remained unresolved for months. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that removing an IG who was still legally qualified, without reasonable grounds, conflicted with the rule of law.

Karki argues that this principle applies to his situation. He says the government could not simply create or use another post to bypass safeguards governing removal. The precedent does not itself decide Karki’s case, but it supplies a legal argument for restoring him and examining the Cabinet’s reasons and procedure.

Quo warranto and mandamus are different forms of court relief. Quo warranto questions a person’s legal authority to hold a public office. In Karki’s petition, it asks Manoj Kumar KC to show the legal basis for occupying the inspector general’s position. If that authority is invalid, the court could examine or invalidate his appointment and related actions.

Mandamus works differently. It asks the court to direct a public authority or official to perform a legal duty. Karki seeks mandamus to keep him in office until the tenure required by Rule 127 of the Nepal Police Regulations, 2014, is complete. He also wants his official status and service benefits restored and wants the government restrained from replacing him without due process.

The two requests therefore target different problems. Quo warranto challenges KC’s entitlement to the office. Mandamus supports Karki’s continued service. Together with the requested interim order, they seek to restore Karki, block KC’s exercise of IG powers, and suspend the Cabinet decision while the case proceeds.

Natural justice is a basic fairness principle in public decision-making. When a government plans to remove an official, the official should normally know the reasons and have a chance to answer them. This helps prevent arbitrary action and lets the decision-maker consider relevant facts before ending someone’s appointment. The article identifies this principle as central to Karki’s challenge.

Karki says he was removed before his tenure ended without an opportunity to respond to the reasons. His petition argues that the government cannot bypass these safeguards by appointing him to another position, such as special security adviser. The article also cites Supreme Court precedents involving former IG Achyut Krishna Kharel and former Nepal Electricity Authority chief Hitendra Dev Shakya.

The issue now is whether the Cabinet followed the required process and had lawful grounds for acting. The court could examine those questions after registration. If it finds the procedure unfair or the removal unjustified, it could order a remedy, including restoring Karki or suspending actions based on the Cabinet decision.