Kathmandu, July 25: A joint statement by Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has raised fresh concerns over the independence of Nepal’s judiciary, questioning whether political pressure is being used to influence the Supreme Court.
Issued less than 24 hours after Chief Justice Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma left for a four-day visit to India, the statement claims the organisations received credible information that Supreme Court Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, and Hari Phuyal were pressured by the government to resign and threatened with impeachment if they refused. The groups warned that using impeachment without clear constitutional grounds could undermine judicial independence, reshape the court, and influence pending cases.
The concerns extend beyond the three judges. As the guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is responsible for checking executive and legislative overreach while protecting citizens’ rights. If judges are forced to weigh political consequences instead of legal principles, public trust in the judiciary and democratic institutions is at risk.
The statement also comes at a sensitive time, with the Supreme Court hearing major cases involving government decisions and constitutional appointments. Under Nepal’s Constitution, a judge is automatically suspended once an impeachment motion is registered, meaning even the threat of impeachment can disrupt the court’s work.
The organisations also criticised amendments to the Constitutional Council Act introduced through an ordinance. They argued that allowing appointments to proceed with only three of the council’s six members increased political influence over judicial appointments. They questioned the appointment of Chief Justice Sharma, noting it departed from the established practice of seniority, faced unresolved complaints, and lacked an effective parliamentary hearing.
Nepal has faced similar controversy before. The impeachment motion against former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was widely viewed as politically motivated, highlighting how constitutional mechanisms can be misused.
While international organisations’ conclusions remain open to debate, their concerns cannot be dismissed lightly. Nepal is a party to international human rights treaties that guarantee judicial independence, fair trials, and the rule of law. Their statement serves as a reminder of those commitments rather than an intrusion into domestic affairs.
Judges remain accountable under the Constitution, and legal action is justified where evidence exists. But any disciplinary process must remain impartial, evidence based, and free from political influence. Otherwise, accountability risks becoming a tool of intimidation.
Ultimately, restoring confidence in the judiciary is the responsibility of the government, Parliament, and political parties. An independent court is not an obstacle to government. It is the institution that safeguards the Constitution and protects the rights of both the state and its citizens.
Login to add a comment