Nepal's Supreme Court divided over asset probe case bench

A dispute has emerged within Nepal's Supreme Court over the appropriate bench to hear challenges to a government commission investigating the assets of politicians and senior officials. The case is currently in limbo, with an interim order halting the commission's work.

A two-justice bench had previously directed that the case be heard by a three-justice full bench. However, the Supreme Court administration has since recommended it be transferred to the constitutional bench. This move has sparked objections from the Nepal Bar Association and lawyers involved in the case.

The justices who issued the initial order cited "serious and complex constitutional and legal questions" surrounding the commission's formation and mandate. They also called for senior lawyers to be appointed as "amici curiae" to assist the court. The Nepal Bar Association has nominated former attorney general Badri Bahadur Karki and senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai, while the Supreme Court Bar Association recommended former attorney general Dinmani Pokharel and advocate Raman Karna.

“

The commission’s formation and mandate raised serious and complex constitutional and legal questions.

The Supreme Court administration cited "serious constitutional questions" and invoked Article 137(3) of the Constitution, which allows the chief justice to assign a case to the constitutional bench if it involves a significant constitutional interpretation question. Arjun Koirala, spokesperson for the Supreme Court, stated the administration acted within this framework.

Despite the administration's justification, the Nepal Bar Association strongly criticized the recommendation. The association submitted a 10-point memorandum to Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, arguing that an administrative decision should not override a judicial bench's order. Lawyers maintain the case should proceed before the full bench as initially directed. One petitioner, lawyer Prem Raj Silwal, has also challenged the administrative recommendation, though his petition has not yet been registered or rejected.

“

The administration had acted within that constitutional framework.