KATHMANDU, July 24: Three leading international human rights organizations have expressed serious concern over what they describe as growing political interference in Nepal's judiciary, warning that recent government actions threaten judicial independence and the rule of law.
In a joint statement issued on Friday, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) alleged that political pressure has been exerted to alter the composition of the Supreme Court through the forced resignation or possible impeachment of sitting justices.
The organizations also criticized the government's decision to amend the Constitutional Council Act through an executive ordinance in May 2026, saying the move bypassed the parliamentary process required under Nepal's Constitution and undermined the principles of the rule of law.
According to the statement, the amendments changed the quorum and voting requirements of the Constitutional Council—the body responsible for recommending appointments to key constitutional positions, including the chief justice. The rights groups argued that the changes increase the risk of political influence over judicial appointments because political office holders already constitute a majority in the council.
"The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of the rule of law and an essential safeguard for the protection of human rights," ICJ Senior Legal and Policy Director Ian Seiderman said. He stressed that any reform of Nepal's justice system should strengthen, rather than weaken, the independence, impartiality and integrity of the courts.
SC justices refuse to appear before House Panel
The statement also questioned the recent appointment of Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma as chief justice, noting that it departed from Nepal's long-standing practice of appointing the senior-most serving Supreme Court justice despite three more senior judges remaining in office.
The organizations said the Parliamentary Hearing Committee endorsed Sharma's appointment despite complaints regarding his nomination and without conducting what they described as a meaningful public examination of those complaints.
The rights groups further claimed they had received credible reports that three senior Supreme Court justices—Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Phuyal—had been pressured to resign and threatened with impeachment if they refused.
They said they were unaware of any publicly stated allegations that would meet the constitutional grounds for impeachment.
The organizations warned that suspending the three justices through impeachment proceedings would significantly affect the composition and functioning of the Supreme Court at a time when it is hearing several important constitutional cases involving challenges to government decisions and executive actions.
"The use or threatened use of impeachment against judges without clear constitutional justification risks creating the appearance that constitutional procedures are being used to influence the composition of the court and, potentially, the outcome of pending litigation," the statement said.
Human Rights Watch Deputy Asia Director Meenakshi Ganguly said public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on the competence and integrity of judges but also on the transparency, fairness and independence of judicial appointments.
"Appointments or removals that appear susceptible to political influence undermine confidence in the administration of justice and weaken the rule of law," she said.
The organizations noted that international standards require judges to be free from improper influence, pressure, threats or interference, and that judicial removals should be based on objective criteria and protected from political influence.
Amnesty International's Acting Regional Director for South Asia Isabelle Lassee said judicial reforms should aim to build stronger and more independent institutions rather than make them more vulnerable to political pressure.
The three organizations urged the Nepal government to refrain from pressuring judges to resign or initiating impeachment proceedings without clear constitutional grounds, ensure transparent and merit-based judicial appointments, review the amendments to the Constitutional Council Act through an open parliamentary process, and ensure that future judicial reforms strengthen judicial independence, transparency, accountability and public confidence in the justice system.
