- Leaked WhatsApp messages show Inam Sapkota pressured Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal to deny bail in a high-profile business case.
- Justice Phuyal denied the request and granted bail based on legal merit, though he later met Sapkota at a Kathmandu hotel.
- Phuyal claims he initially engaged Sapkota to mitigate political impeachment threats but later reported the man to the Prime Minister’s Office.
- The Nepal Bar Association is demanding a formal investigation into the communications to protect the integrity of the nation's highest court.
Kathmandu, Nepal: A series of leaked WhatsApp exchanges between a sitting Supreme Court Justice and a man currently in police custody has ignited a heated debate over judicial independence and political pressure in Nepal’s highest court.
At the center of the controversy is Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and Inam Sapkota, a man who reached out to the judge regarding a high-profile bail petition filed by businessman Rohit Gupta.
On September 2, a joint bench formed by Justice Phuyal and Justice Shrikant Poudel ordered Gupta’s release on a Rs 20 million bail. However, leaked text exchanges reveal that prior to the ruling, Sapkota had contacted Phuyal urging him to reject the petition. Sapkota claimed that Prime Minister Balendra Shah personally wanted the businessman kept behind bars.
According to the messages, Phuyal replied that he had seen the text late and noted that there were valid legal grounds to grant Gupta bail. Following the ruling, the judge sent Sapkota a direct link to the court order and suggested they meet the next day at Hotel Himalaya.
The revelation has raised serious questions about off-the-record communications between judges and outside figures attempting to sway active cases. However, the available records do not prove that the court's final decision was compromised.
"I Acted on Legal Merit," Says Justice Phuyal
Justice Phuyal has strongly denied any financial arrangement or wrongdoing, offering his account of how the contact began.
According to Phuyal, Sapkota originally approached him claiming to be a representative of Prime Minister Shah. At the time, several judges were increasingly concerned about political chatter surrounding potential impeachment proceedings. Phuyal said he initially believed Sapkota could act as a bridge to open a dialogue with the Prime Minister's Office.
"Suspicions only arose when he began bringing up specific cases pending before the court," Phuyal explained.
The judge pointed out that if he had intended to follow Sapkota's pressure, he would have denied the bail as requested. Instead, he maintains the decision to grant bail was made strictly on its legal merits. Phuyal added that he later reported Sapkota’s contact details and photograph to both the Prime Minister’s Office and the Army Chief’s Secretariat.
Addressing the meeting at Hotel Himalaya, Phuyal acknowledged that it took place, but noted it was not a private sit-down as several other people were present. He expressed full confidence in his actions, stating he is ready to cooperate with any formal inquiry.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma has firmly distanced himself from the situation, stating he has no connection to Sapkota. No evidence has surfaced linking the Chief Justice to the matter.
Pressure vs. Integrity: What the Evidence Shows
The key question now facing legal observers is whether this was simply an unsuccessful attempt by an outsider to exert political pressure, or if it pointed to a deeper breach of judicial ethics.
Under judicial standards, judges are required to decide cases purely on law and evidence, completely insulated from outside politics. While the timing of the messages and the subsequent meeting look troubling on the surface, legal experts emphasize that contact alone does not prove corruption or improper influence.
To determine what actually happened, investigators would need to examine:
The full, unedited transcript of the WhatsApp chat log.
The formal legal reasoning detailed in the bench's written bail order.
Eyewitness accounts from the gathering at Hotel Himalaya.
While unverified rumors regarding financial kickbacks have circulated on social media, no credible evidence has emerged to support those claims.
Lawyers Demand Formal Inquiry
In response to the growing public outcry, the Nepal Bar Association has officially called for a thorough, impartial investigation to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
A formal inquiry would help establish how Sapkota gained access to the judge, whether standard codes of conduct were violated, and whether the text exchanges had any real impact on the court's final ruling.
For now, the allegations against Justice Phuyal remain unproven. Legal experts stress that protecting public trust in the justice system requires a fair, fact-based process rather than judgment by public reaction.
