Without Cleaning Up the Judiciary, Genuine Reform in Any Other Sector of Nepal Is Impossible

By Ram Prasad Khanal

October 30, 2026 | Opinion 

When citizens lose faith in judges themselves, who will deliver justice? On what grounds can people trust court decisions? And if public confidence in the judiciary collapses, how can the rule of law survive?

A warning to Nepal: The collapse of public trust in the judiciary does not merely weaken one institution. It threatens the entire nation’s legal, constitutional, and moral foundations.

When someone suffers injustice, the court is supposed to be the final refuge. It is the place where citizens seek protection, where truth is expected to prevail, where the innocent receive justice, and where the guilty are punished in accordance with the law.

Even when every other institution of the state fails them, ordinary citizens still look to the judiciary with hope and confidence.

But what happens when the very institution entrusted with delivering justice becomes the subject of serious allegations? Whom should citizens trust when judges themselves face questions about their integrity? Where should an ordinary person turn when the guardians of justice are accused of betraying the principles they are sworn to uphold?

And when the credibility of the judiciary itself comes under suspicion, what remains of democracy, constitutional government, and the rule of law?

These are no longer merely theoretical questions in Nepal. They have become urgent national concerns.

Nepal’s judiciary is once again under intense scrutiny following a series of controversies involving prominent judicial figures. From the earlier disputes surrounding former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana to the latest allegations involving Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal, Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, and other judges and influential individuals, the country’s judicial establishment faces deeply troubling questions.

These developments have raised concerns not only about individual conduct but also about judicial independence, professional ethics, institutional accountability, and the erosion of public confidence.

Recent reports have brought to light alleged WhatsApp communications and a hotel meeting between Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and Inam Sapkota, a person accused of acting as a judicial intermediary.

Such contact becomes particularly sensitive when it involves matters connected to pending court cases.

Justice Phuyal has acknowledged the communication and meeting but has denied engaging in wrongdoing or improperly influencing judicial decisions. He has reportedly maintained that he informed the relevant authorities about suspicious activities and expressed his willingness to cooperate with an investigation.

Similarly, Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s name has appeared in allegations concerning purported financial dealings. He has denied the accusations.

It is essential to emphasize that not all publicly circulated claims have been independently verified. Allegations alone do not establish guilt, and every accused individual is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Nevertheless, when serious accusations reach the highest levels of the judiciary, they cannot simply be dismissed as personal controversies.

They demand credible, transparent, independent, and impartial examination.

The allegation that justice can be bought and sold in Nepal is hardly new.

Senior advocate Shambhu Thapa has publicly raised concerns about alleged financial dealings within the judicial system. In a past interview, he reportedly made the startling assertion that lawyers pay judges, judges accept money, and judicial decisions follow.

Such statements, particularly when attributed to experienced legal professionals, raise questions that deserve serious investigation rather than automatic dismissal.

Likewise, senior advocate and campaigner Dhruva Lal Shrestha, president of the Campaign for Truth and Justice, has repeatedly spoken against corruption, institutional misconduct, and irregularities within Nepal’s judicial system.

Over the years, questions have surfaced regarding judicial appointments, controversial verdicts, the influence of intermediaries, and alleged financial transactions surrounding court decisions.

Yet the failure to resolve these concerns convincingly has allowed suspicion and public frustration to deepen.

For years, some dismissed allegations of judicial corruption as rumors. Others described them as politically motivated attacks or attempts to undermine judicial independence.

But as new allegations and purported evidence continue to emerge, previously unanswered questions are returning with greater urgency.

How much of what has been reported is true? How much is exaggerated or misleading? Who, if anyone, has engaged in misconduct?

Only an independent and credible investigation can establish the answers.

There may be additional revelations, but responsible public debate must distinguish established facts from allegations, suspicion, and speculation.

The most frightening question, however, goes far beyond the conduct of any individual judge.

If citizens no longer trust judges, who will deliver justice? If judicial decisions themselves become objects of suspicion, how can the public accept their legitimacy? And if faith in the courts disappears, how can constitutional democracy survive?

For decades, critics have questioned the political influence exercised over Nepal’s judicial appointments.

Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal has faced allegations concerning his political proximity to the Communist Party of Nepal–Unified Marxist–Leninist (CPN-UML) and former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli.

More broadly, allegations have circulated that individuals affiliated with the UML, Nepali Congress, and Maoist political movements have entered the judiciary through political patronage.

These criticisms extend across the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Courts, particularly in the period following the political changes of 1990 and, more prominently, after the 2006 democratic movement.

Questions about which political leader or party influenced particular judicial appointments have repeatedly entered public discussion.

However, political association or a previous professional connection does not, by itself, prove judicial wrongdoing. What requires examination is whether appointments were made through improper political bargaining, favoritism, financial inducements, or other violations of constitutional and ethical standards.

The broader concern remains deeply troubling: Has political loyalty increasingly displaced merit, integrity, independence, and judicial competence in the appointment process?

Nepal has gradually allowed allegations of political interference and partisan bargaining to surround nearly every major public institution.

Education, healthcare, public administration, constitutional bodies, law enforcement, and the judiciary have all faced criticism over the influence of political parties and powerful individuals.

When personal connections take precedence over qualifications, political loyalty overshadows impartiality, and partisan interests weaken institutional independence, the consequences can become devastating.

A judge must not act as a political party worker wearing a judicial robe.

A courtroom must never become an extension of a political party headquarters, a meeting place for influential power brokers, or a marketplace where justice is negotiated behind closed doors.

Those who occupy judicial office must maintain the highest standards of integrity, independence, transparency, and professional conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom.

Justice must not only be delivered; it must also be seen to be delivered fairly.

At the same time, it would be unjust to condemn every judge because of allegations involving certain individuals.

Nepal still has many courageous, honest, competent, and principled judges and legal professionals who deserve recognition and protection.

Their integrity should not be undermined by unproven accusations against others.

But protecting the reputation of the judiciary cannot mean concealing misconduct or shielding anyone from scrutiny.

In fact, failing to investigate serious allegations ultimately damages the reputations of honest judges more than transparent accountability ever could.

What Nepal urgently needs is an independent, impartial, transparent, and evidence-based investigation.

Reported communications, private meetings, alleged financial transactions, the involvement of judicial intermediaries, and any suspected interference in pending cases must be carefully examined.

No political party, government official, judicial authority, or influential individual should be allowed to manipulate or obstruct the process.

If wrongdoing is established, those responsible must face consequences in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws, including removal from judicial office where justified and criminal prosecution where warranted.

Equally, if individuals are cleared through a credible investigation, their reputations must be protected and restored.

Calls from legal organizations, including the Supreme Court Bar Association and Nepal Bar Association, for impartial investigations and public disclosure of the facts underscore the seriousness of these concerns.

Public statements, denials, explanations, and formal meetings alone will no longer be sufficient to restore confidence.

Nepal needs concrete institutional action.

The Judicial Council, judicial leadership, Parliament, and relevant constitutional authorities must exercise their lawful responsibilities to strengthen integrity, accountability, and public confidence in the courts.

Judicial appointments, performance evaluations, codes of conduct, conflict-of-interest rules, mechanisms for identifying improper intermediaries, and procedures for investigating misconduct all deserve serious reform.

Judicial independence must never be confused with immunity from accountability.

Likewise, accountability must never become an excuse for political interference in judicial decision-making.

Both principles are indispensable to a functioning constitutional democracy.

If citizens lose faith in the police, they may appeal to the courts. If public administrators abuse their powers, the judiciary is expected to provide remedies. If a government violates the Constitution, the courts are supposed to intervene.

But where can citizens turn when they lose faith in the courts themselves?

A society deprived of credible justice becomes vulnerable to frustration, instability, disregard for the law, and eventually lawlessness.

This is not merely a question of protecting the prestige of judges.

It is a question of protecting the constitutional order and the future of the nation.

The allegations now confronting the judiciary must therefore be examined without prejudice, favoritism, intimidation, or political manipulation.

If necessary, Nepal must undertake bold structural reforms within its judicial system.

Judges found guilty of corruption should face lawful and proportionate consequences rather than political protection.

The judiciary must be protected from improper intermediaries, corrupt practices, political patronage, and financial influence.

The dignity of the judicial office is not greater than the value of justice itself. The physical grandeur of a courthouse is not more important than the trust citizens place in it.

Nepal must preserve the fundamental belief that citizens can still obtain justice when they enter a courtroom.

The judiciary should never become a sanctuary for the powerful and a source of despair for the powerless.

It must remain a place where every individual, regardless of political affiliation, social standing, wealth, or influence, stands equal before the law.

Otherwise, Nepal risks becoming a country that declares itself a democratic republic in its Constitution while denying its citizens meaningful justice in practice.

Let us be clear: The collapse of public confidence in the judiciary would not simply represent the failure of one institution. It would undermine the legal and moral foundations of the entire state.

The issue today is not merely Hari Prasad Phuyal, Cholendra Shumsher Rana, a particular Chief Justice, or any individual judge.

The real issue is the credibility, independence, and integrity of Nepal’s entire judicial system.

For years, serious criticism has been directed at Nepal’s major political parties, including the UML, Nepali Congress, and the Maoists, over alleged political quota-sharing and partisan influence in judicial appointments.

The longstanding concern is that political access, personal loyalty, and the blessings of powerful party leaders may have outweighed professional qualifications, impartiality, competence, and moral character.

These concerns cannot be resolved through slogans, accusations, or political retaliation.

They require a comprehensive and independent review of appointment practices and credible investigation of specific allegations.

Anyone found to have secured judicial office through unlawful financial transactions, bribery, fraudulent practices, or other serious misconduct must face accountability under the law.

A judicial appointment is not a political reward. It is a sacred public responsibility to administer justice fairly and independently.

The same standards must apply to everyone, whether a judge is described as a communist sympathizer, a Congress supporter, a Maoist affiliate, or someone with connections to another political organization.

Political belief alone must not become grounds for punishment or dismissal.

But no judge should be protected from scrutiny merely because of political connections.

The appointment process, professional qualifications, judicial conduct, potential conflicts of interest, legally relevant financial disclosures, and judicial performance must all be subject to appropriate legal oversight.

Where corruption or other disqualifying misconduct is established, accountability should replace political protection.

There can be no meaningful judicial reform without impartial standards.

And there can be no credible judiciary if those standards apply selectively.

Without Judicial Reform, National Reform Is Impossible

Above all, one fundamental truth must be recognized:

Without cleaning up the judiciary, genuine reform in Nepal’s other institutions will remain dangerously incomplete.

When public administration fails, citizens seek legal remedies through the courts.

When police abuse their authority, the judiciary is expected to provide protection.

When governments violate constitutional limits, courts must uphold the Constitution.

When political leaders face allegations of corruption, independent judicial proceedings are essential to determining responsibility and ensuring lawful consequences.

But if the judiciary itself becomes vulnerable to political manipulation, financial influence, or corrupt intermediaries, the entire accountability system is placed at risk.

Investigations may be undermined, prosecutions weakened, and public confidence in the rule of law severely damaged.

That is why an independent, transparent, competent, and trustworthy judiciary is not simply one component of national reform.

It is the foundation upon which meaningful reform in every other sector depends.

Nepal must now move beyond personalities, political rivalries, and selective outrage.

The country needs systemic judicial reform grounded in constitutional principles, reliable evidence, institutional independence, and equal accountability.

Improper political bargaining in judicial appointments must end.

Allegations of corruption and serious misconduct must be investigated independently.

Those found responsible must face lawful consequences.

And the reputation of the judiciary must be rebuilt through integrity, transparency, and consistent justice, not through public relations exercises or political assurances.

We must remember that only a trustworthy judiciary can effectively hold other state institutions accountable.

If the courts themselves cannot command public confidence, promises of good governance, anti-corruption campaigns, and political transformation risk becoming little more than empty rhetoric.

The courts must display the scales of justice, not the flags of political parties.

The Constitution and the law must speak through judicial decisions, not the instructions of political leaders.

Truth and evidence must determine verdicts, not the influence of brokers, powerful individuals, or partisan networks.

The purification and reform of the judiciary must therefore be treated as an essential national priority.

This is no longer the time merely to raise questions.

It is time to seek answers, establish the facts, ensure accountability, and pursue meaningful reform within the constitutional framework.

Otherwise, history may ask Nepal’s leaders and institutions an unforgiving question:

When the very foundation of justice was in crisis, what were those entrusted with protecting the nation doing?

Let us protect the judiciary.

Let us restore the dignity of justice.

Let us preserve the last hope and confidence of ordinary citizens.

Because when justice dies, a nation may continue to exist on the map, but it loses the moral foundation that makes it a just and civilized state.