Supreme Court registers petition challenging removal of Nepal Police chief

The Cabinet removed Dan Bahadur Karki as inspector general of police and appointed Additional Inspector General Manoj Kumar KC as his replacement. It also made Karki the prime minister’s special security adviser. The dispute matters because Karki says the government ended his legally protected tenure without following required safeguards.

Karki’s petition asks the court to cancel both his new appointment and KC’s appointment as police chief. It seeks an interim order allowing Karki to continue leading Nepal Police while preventing KC from exercising the office’s powers. The petition also asks for writs directing the government to keep Karki in office until his prescribed term ends.

The Supreme Court registered the petition after initially withholding registration for review. That registration allows the case to move toward a hearing, possibly after the Tihar holidays. A bench could preserve the existing position, require explanations from both sides, or allow KC to continue temporarily while it considers the dispute.

A writ petition is a formal court application challenging an alleged legal wrong by a public authority. Here, Karki asks the Supreme Court to examine the Cabinet’s decision, protect his claimed tenure, and control who may exercise the inspector general’s powers. It matters because a court can review whether officials followed legal duties and fair procedures.

The court administration first withheld registration while officials studied the document. After discussions involving senior court administrators, the petition was registered on Friday. Registration means the case has cleared that initial administrative step and can be placed before a bench. It does not decide whether Karki’s claims are correct.

The next stage may come after the Tihar break, when the court reopens. A single bench assigned by lottery could issue an interim order, seek explanations from both sides, or arrange a hearing about temporary control of the post. The case’s merits would still require judicial consideration.

Dan Bahadur Karki became inspector general in November 2025 after Chandra Kuber Khapung retired. The article states that Karki joined Nepal Police in March 1998 and was expected to remain police chief until March 2028. That gives his expected term a span of roughly two years and four months.

The Cabinet removed him on November 4, before that endpoint. Using the article’s dates, approximately 16 months remained in his expected tenure. The article does not provide a precise day for his appointment or a detailed calculation of months served, so the remaining period is an estimate rather than an exact figure.

That unfinished term is central to the lawsuit. Karki argues that the government could not end it simply by moving him into a newly created adviser position. He wants the court to restore him for the rest of the legally prescribed period and protect his status and service benefits.

Natural justice and due process require fair treatment before the government takes a serious action against an office-holder. Karki argues that the Cabinet ended his tenure without informing him of the reasons or giving him an opportunity to explain. In his view, that violated a basic procedural safeguard and made the removal legally defective.

The petition also challenges the government’s method. Karki was not simply dismissed in the decision; he was appointed prime minister’s special security adviser. He argues that assigning him another post cannot be used to avoid the rules governing removal from the inspector general’s office. The petition cites Supreme Court precedents supporting notice and an opportunity to respond.

The court must now consider whether those safeguards applied and whether the Cabinet had adequate legal grounds. If it accepts Karki’s position, it could suspend the decision and restore him. If not, KC could continue under the Cabinet’s appointment while the broader challenge is resolved.

The inspector general leads Nepal Police, so uncertainty over who holds that authority can affect the chain of command. Karki’s petition warns that allowing both him and Manoj Kumar KC to exercise inspector-general-level authority could create conflicting instructions. That could make it unclear which officer has the final power to direct the force.

The petition presents reinstatement as the less harmful option. It says Karki is still legally entitled to complete his prescribed tenure, while KC’s appointment is being challenged. It therefore asks the court to prevent KC from performing the duties of police chief and to suspend the Cabinet decision that placed him there.

The immediate legal solution could come through an interim order. A bench might maintain the status quo by allowing Karki to return and restraining KC. Alternatively, the court could hear both sides about a temporary arrangement and let KC continue while it decides whether the appointments and removal were lawful.

An interim order is a temporary judicial direction issued while a case is still pending. It can preserve the disputed position and prevent one side from taking actions that might be difficult to reverse. In this case, Karki wants the court to suspend the Cabinet’s decision and protect his ability to serve.

The article identifies one possible outcome: a single bench could maintain the status quo, allow Karki to return as police chief, and prevent KC from functioning in that role. The court could also issue a show-cause order, requiring the government and KC to explain their positions before an interim arrangement is considered.

A different temporary outcome would leave KC functioning as police chief while the court examines the challenge. Registration does not determine which option will occur. The court will decide after the case is listed, possibly after the Tihar break, and after considering submissions from both sides.

The earlier Kharel dispute is important because it tested the government’s power to replace a serving inspector general. In 1997, the government transferred Achyut Krishna Kharel to the National Investigation Department and appointed Dhruba Bahadur Pradhan instead. Kharel challenged the move, arguing that the government had improperly ended his role.

The dispute remained unresolved for months. An incoming government later reinstated Kharel and appointed Pradhan as an adviser. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that removing an inspector general who remained legally qualified to serve, without reasonable grounds, was inconsistent with the rule of law.

That precedent supports Karki’s argument that eligibility and fair procedure matter when a senior public official is removed. It does not automatically decide Karki’s case, because the court must examine the current Cabinet decision and facts. But it gives the petition a direct legal comparison and may shape the court’s approach to interim relief.