KATHMANDU, May 18: Nepal’s judiciary was thrust deeper into controversy on Monday after an extraordinary confrontation spilled from the Supreme Court (SC) into Parliament, exposing widening divisions over the recommendation of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma as the country’s next Chief Justice (CJ).
What began as a legal challenge to Sharma’s appointment has now evolved into a broader institutional crisis — one involving allegations of procedural obstruction inside the SC, accusations of judicial overreach from lawmakers and growing public questions about the independence and credibility of Nepal’s highest court.
The latest turmoil erupted after Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla issued a sharply worded order accusing senior court officials of obstructing the judicial process by refusing to register petitions challenging the rejection of writs filed against Sharma’s recommendation as new CJ.
In the order, Malla revealed that the petitions had allegedly been kept “on hold” on the direct instruction of Sharma himself—the same justice recommended by the Constitutional Council for appointment as the new Chief Justice. The recommendation drew attention because Justice Sharma currently ranks fourth in the Supreme Court’s seniority order. His nomination marks what is reported to be the first instance in Nepal’s judicial history in which a Chief Justice has been proposed in apparent deviation from the established seniority tradition.
The disclosure emerged after Chief Registrar Bimal Paudel informed SC justices that the petitions had not proceeded because Justice Sharma had instructed the administration not to accept them.
The accusation has intensified scrutiny of a recommendation already clouded by controversy. Petitioners argue that the Constitutional Council bypassed the judiciary’s established seniority order when it recommended Sharma on May 7. Their writ petitions challenging the decision were initially rejected by the Supreme Court administration. But when they attempted to challenge that rejection, their follow-up applications reportedly remained unregistered for more than a week.
In unusually strong language, Acting Chief Justice Malla warned that refusing to register petitions submitted through legal channels amounted to an obstruction of justice and a violation of judicial procedure.
Internal revenue sub-committee seeks suggestions on revenue for...
“This obstructs the judicial process,” the order stated. “It is negligence and incompetence against the cleanliness, impartiality, capability and independence of the judiciary.”
Malla further suggested that both the registrar responsible for hearing cases and the Chief Registrar had intentionally delayed proceedings, creating procedural confusion within the court itself.
The order immediately triggered political backlash.
During Monday’s House of Representatives meeting, lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) openly criticized Malla’s actions, despite constitutional provisions restricting parliamentary discussion on matters under judicial consideration.
RSP lawmaker Samikshya Baskota accused sections of the judiciary of stepping into political territory and challenged justices to “take off their robes and enter politics” if they wished to engage in political battles.
“If the judiciary descends to that level with the intention of capturing state power, then it cannot deliver justice,” lawmaker Baskota said in Parliament. “The primary duty of Supreme Court justices is to dispense justice.”
She specifically objected to Malla’s decision to order the registration of previously rejected writ petitions and to remarks the acting chief justice reportedly made during Law Day celebrations, where she said “the fight is not over yet.”
“Fight with whom?” Baskota asked. “If the fight is with the state, then remove the robe and come forward — we are ready.”
Another RSP lawmaker, Yagya Mani Neupane, also questioned the legitimacy of Malla’s order, describing it as an example of growing judicial activism and raising concerns about a possible “conflict of interest.”
Neupane argued that the judiciary appeared more active in politically sensitive matters than in addressing its own mounting case backlog. “There are more than 27,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court including thousands older than five years,” he said. “Where is the judicial activism there?”
He warned that actions perceived to fall outside formal judicial administration risked deepening public suspicion about the court’s impartiality.
The parliamentary criticism prompted objections from UML Chief Whip Ain Mahar, who reminded lawmakers that Article 105 of the Constitution prohibits discussion in Parliament on matters currently under judicial consideration if such discussion could affect the administration of justice.
Yet the debate reflected how the controversy surrounding Sharma’s recommendation has moved beyond legal procedure and become a wider political and institutional struggle over the judiciary’s role, limits and credibility.
This development followed after around 30 lawyers accompanied the petitioners to meet Acting Chief Justice Malla and protest the administration’s refusal to register their applications earlier on Monday. Soon afterward, Malla ordered the petitions to be formally registered the same day.
The episode has raised difficult questions for Nepal’s judicial system at a sensitive moment. Critics argue that if a judge recommended for Chief Justice can influence how cases related to his own appointment are handled, public confidence in judicial independence could suffer lasting damage. At the same time, supporters of Sharma and critics of Malla accuse the acting chief justice of politicizing the bench and stretching judicial authority into contested political terrain.
The dispute now looms over Sharma’s pending parliamentary hearing, which is expected to face heightened scrutiny amid growing tensions between the judiciary, political parties and court administration.
For Nepal’s SC — already burdened by years of political controversy, constitutional disputes and mounting case delays — the conflict has become more than a disagreement over a single appointment. It has evolved into a public test of the judiciary’s independence, internal cohesion and institutional legitimacy.
