The late-night removal of former Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana from his residence and his overnight ‘detention’ at the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office have raised troubling questions about the exercise of state power in Nepal. Whether authorities describe the episode as a security measure or something else, the central question remains: Can the state take an individual into police custody without a complaint, an arrest warrant, a criminal investigation, or a clearly stated legal basis? In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the answer must be no. Police have insisted that Rana was not arrested but taken to a safe place because of a security threat. Yet the explanation has failed to convince many observers. If there was a genuine threat, authorities could have strengthened security at his residence, coordinated with his family, or acted against those allegedly plotting an attack. Instead, police officers arrived at his home late at night and took him to a crime investigation office. The controversy has deepened because there was reportedly no complaint against Rana, no criminal case under investigation, and no publicly disclosed legal order authorizing the action. Reports suggesting that concerns over Rana’s political contacts and alleged involvement in sensitive legal matters may have influenced the decision have only intensified public suspicion.
UN Working Group condemns Bhutan for arbitrary detention and HR...
Whether those reports are accurate or not, the government has a responsibility to address the perception that state institutions may have been used for purposes beyond law enforcement and public safety. This issue extends far beyond one former chief justice. If authorities can remove a former head of the judiciary from his residence in the middle of the night without clearly establishing a legal basis, ordinary citizens may reasonably wonder what protections are available to them. The rule of law is tested not when power is exercised against unpopular individuals, but when legal safeguards are upheld regardless of who is involved. Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari has rightly noted that even if authorities had grounds to question Rana, there were less intrusive and more transparent ways to proceed. A former chief justice could have been asked to cooperate if a lawful investigation existed. Resorting to an operation that resembles detention while insisting that no arrest took place only creates confusion and distrust. Nepal’s Constitution guarantees personal liberty and due process. The Criminal Procedure Code also sets out clear procedures for arrest and detention. These safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary exercises of power and to protect public confidence in state institutions.
Governments may at times face genuine security concerns, but extraordinary actions require extraordinary transparency. If a security threat justified the operation, authorities should explain why alternative protective measures were insufficient. If procedural lapses occurred, they should be acknowledged and corrected. The government owes the public a clear and credible account of what happened. More importantly, Nepal must strengthen safeguards against arbitrary state action through strict adherence to legal procedures, proper documentation, and greater accountability in policing. No institution can be placed above the law. The rule of law survives only when power is exercised through transparent legal procedures rather than discretionary decisions. If state agencies begin acting first and explaining later, constitutional guarantees risk becoming little more than words on paper. The Rana episode should serve as a reminder that democracy is measured not by the power a government holds, but by the restraint it shows in exercising that power.
