- Nepal’s Supreme Court is investigating reports of several justices having improper contact with Inam Sapkota, a figure linked to a money-laundering probe.
- WhatsApp exchanges suggest Justice Phuyal discussed a pending case with Sapkota, while separate financial records allegedly mention Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma.
- Chief Justice Sharma convened full court meetings to address these allegations, which have raised serious concerns about judicial independence and potential misconduct.
- Debates continue over whether the Judicial Council or Parliament should investigate the justices, amid calls for a transparent and impartial inquiry.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal’s Supreme Court is facing questions over reports that several justices had contact with Inam Sapkota, an individual linked to a money-laundering investigation. The allegations have raised concerns about judicial conduct and possible attempts to influence court proceedings.
Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma called a full court meeting on Friday to discuss the controversy. Several justices took part in the hour-long meeting, but no decision was announced, and another meeting was scheduled for Monday.
The controversy centres on reported WhatsApp exchanges between Sapkota and Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal. Messages dated September 2 reportedly show Sapkota contacting Phuyal while claiming to represent the Prime Minister’s Office. Their conversation concerned a money-laundering case involving Rohit Gupta, a former director of Himalayan Reinsurance.
A bench comprising Justices Phuyal and Shreekanta Paudel had heard two petitions related to the case. It dismissed a habeas corpus petition but granted release on Rs 20 million bail in a separate challenge to the remand order.
The messages reportedly show Sapkota asking Phuyal to dismiss the petition, and Phuyal suggesting a meeting at Hotel Himalaya. Phuyal has acknowledged meeting Sapkota, stating that he believed Sapkota represented the Prime Minister’s Office. He has also claimed that five to seven other justices met him.
Private contact between a judge and someone connected to a pending case raises serious concerns, particularly if the discussion involves the case’s outcome. While the reported exchanges do not establish that a judge acted improperly, they warrant examination under the Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct, which requires judges to maintain independence and impartiality.
Chief Justice Sharma has denied any connection with Sapkota. However, the alleged financial records reportedly recovered during the investigation have added to the controversy. The documents allegedly mention Sharma, former police official and lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokhrel, and Armed Police Force Additional Inspector General Banshiraj Dahal. They reportedly refer to deposits totaling 198,333 over three months, a further request for $7,500, and bank accounts in Nepal and the United States.
The authenticity and significance of these records remain unclear. Being named in financial documents does not establish that anyone received money or committed an offense.
The allegations have emerged amid wider concerns about the judiciary. A five-hour full court meeting on September 30 reportedly focused on internal issues. The detention of former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana on September 27, followed by his release after approximately 12 hours, also drew public attention.
Other concerns include the alleged influence of middlemen in court proceedings, complaints involving the Special Court, and the selection of judges for the Constitutional Bench. A lottery-based system for assigning judges has been proposed to improve transparency. Sharma’s appointment in May 2026 has also prompted debate because he reportedly took office despite being fourth in seniority.
Disagreement remains over which institution should investigate allegations against Supreme Court justices. Judicial Council member Damodar Khadka has stated that the Council does not register complaints against them, arguing instead that Parliament has jurisdiction. Conversely, former Justice Rajendra Prasad Koirala has maintained that the Council can examine judicial conduct.
Article 101 of the Constitution provides for impeachment proceedings. A motion requires the support of at least one-fourth of the members of the House of Representatives, while removal requires a two-thirds majority of its total serving members. Former Justice Balaram KC has proposed an independent investigation involving serving and former judges, legal professionals, and civil society representatives.
The immediate need is to establish whether the reported contacts took place, whether anyone attempted to influence a case, and whether judicial rules were breached. Any investigation must be impartial, and those named must be given a fair opportunity to respond.
The Supreme Court’s authority rests on public confidence in its independence. Serious allegations involving its judges cannot be left unanswered; they must be examined through a credible and transparent process.
