By Our Reporter
When almost the entire Supreme Court gathers to warn about “external and internal influence” on the administration of justice, the concern goes far beyond one former chief justice. The last Monday’s full court was triggered by the extraordinary late-night detention of former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. But the discussion quickly exposed something deeper: Nepal’s judiciary is struggling with pressure from outside while facing serious questions about influence, leadership and credibility within its own walls.
The immediate issue was the way Rana was taken from his residence and kept at the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office for around 12 hours. Police later said he had been moved because of a security threat. Yet no clear explanation emerged about who posed that threat or why taking him to a police office was necessary. The Supreme Court described the state action as arbitrary and stressed that former judicial officeholders remain part of the broader institution of an independent judiciary.
That episode raises an uncomfortable constitutional question. If the executive can use police power against a former chief justice without a transparent legal process, sitting judges may reasonably wonder where the boundary lies. Judicial independence depends not only on judges being free to write judgments. They must also be able to work without fearing consequences from the government when their decisions displease those in power.
Yet the full court did not simply rally behind Rana. Its statement deliberately referred to both “external” and “internal” influence. That choice of words matters.
Rana himself carries a deeply controversial judicial legacy. During his tenure as chief justice, the Nepal Bar Association and fellow judges raised allegations involving arbitrary bench formation, interference in cases, irregularities and the activities of middlemen. Supreme Court judges eventually boycotted benches under his leadership, and an impeachment motion containing numerous allegations was registered against him in 2022. Those allegations were never conclusively resolved through the impeachment process before his retirement.
Now another concern has surfaced. Government figures, lawyers and some judicial sources have alleged that Rana has again become active and may be trying to influence pending cases through contacts within the judiciary. These remain allegations, not established facts. The full court itself reportedly questioned his recent activities and discussed why people associated with court brokerage appeared to have become active again.
That creates a difficult but important distinction. Rana’s alleged influence, if supported by evidence, should be investigated through lawful institutions. It cannot justify picking him up at night without clearly stated legal grounds. The rule of law loses its meaning if questionable influence is answered with questionable state action.
The crisis also cannot be reduced to Rana. Justices reportedly questioned Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma about the formation of the Constitutional Bench, problems at the Special Court, the activities of intermediaries and judicial administration. Concerns have also emerged over Sharma’s leadership after the Constitutional Council departed from the traditional seniority practice when recommending him as chief justice.
This is how Nepal reached the present situation. Political influence over appointments, controversies surrounding bench formation, allegations of middlemen, unfinished judicial reforms and recurring tension between the executive and courts have accumulated over years. When institutions fail to settle such problems transparently, suspicion fills the gap.
The police episode adds another dimension. Reports indicate that police themselves questioned the legal basis for detaining Rana. If law enforcement agencies are expected to carry out politically driven instructions first and search for legal justification later, institutional boundaries begin to collapse. Police lose professional independence, courts feel threatened and governments expose themselves to accusations of executive overreach.
The full court’s intervention should therefore be understood as both a warning to the government and a message to the judiciary itself.
Judicial independence cannot mean protecting judges and former judges from legitimate investigation. Nor can judicial accountability become an excuse for political control. Judges must be accountable under law, while politicians, police officers and former judicial figures must stay outside the process of deciding cases.
The Supreme Court has now publicly promised that neither external nor internal influence will find space in the administration of justice. The harder part begins after the statement. It must establish transparent rules for bench formation, confront middlemen, address complaints surrounding the Special Court and investigate credible allegations of interference.
Otherwise, defending the judiciary from outside pressure while ignoring problems inside it will solve only half the crisis.
Login to add a comment