KATHMANDU, Aug. 6: Is impeachment a constitutional safeguard designed to uphold accountability, or can it be wielded as a political weapon? Nepal is once again grappling with this question after allegations surfaced that senior Supreme Court (SC) justices were pressured to resign or face impeachment.
The allegations, made by international human rights organizations, have been firmly rejected by the government and ruling party lawmakers, who insist that no pressure has been exerted on the judiciary and that the independence of the courts remains intact.
The controversy erupted after Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) claimed that judicial independence in Nepal was at risk. In a joint statement, the organizations alleged that senior SC justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Phuyal were pressured to step down and warned that they could face impeachment if they refused.
Following the joint statement, the House of Representatives' Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee summoned representatives of the three organizations for discussion. However, after they failed to appear before the committee, lawmakers expressed dissatisfaction, arguing that external organizations had interfered in the legislative authority of Nepal's sovereign Parliament.
The committee subsequently directed the government to seek clarification from the organizations, along with supporting evidence, and instructed it to strengthen oversight of projects implemented by international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) through the Social Welfare Council.
Government dismisses allegations
During the committee meeting, Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Sobita Gautam rejected the allegations, saying it was inappropriate to make accusations against Parliament without factual evidence.
She maintained that the government had exerted no pressure on judges and emphasized that Nepal's sovereignty could not be compromised by external influence.
"The independence of the judiciary must be protected, but sovereignty cannot be compromised," Gautam said.
The committee's response, however, has drawn mixed reactions.
This is why the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Rana i...
Nepali Congress lawmaker Gita Gurung argued that directly summoning international organizations to a parliamentary committee was procedurally inappropriate because they are not directly accountable to Parliament. She said any inquiry should instead have been conducted through the government.
Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Yagyamani Neupane, however, argued that foreign organizations should not interfere in Nepal's internal affairs, particularly when issues of national sovereignty are involved.
The constitutional dilemma
At the heart of the debate lies the delicate balance between Parliament's constitutional authority to impeach judges and the judiciary's independence.
Article 101(2) of Nepal's Constitution empowers Parliament to remove the Chief Justice or Supreme Court justices through impeachment if they commit serious violations of the Constitution or law, engage in misconduct, or fail to discharge their duties honestly and effectively.
Constitutional experts say impeachment was never intended to serve as a political bargaining tool. Rather, it was designed as an extraordinary constitutional mechanism to ensure accountability while preserving the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary.
Judicial independence, however, does not place judges beyond accountability.
Experts argue that while judges must be protected from political or external pressure, their conduct, integrity and professional performance must remain subject to constitutional scrutiny.
"If a judge violates legal standards, compromises justice or fails to uphold judicial integrity, parliamentary oversight and constitutional action become legitimate," a constitutional expert said.
For judges who faithfully discharge their constitutional responsibilities, experts say impeachment should not be a source of fear but a mechanism that reinforces public confidence in the judiciary.
Fear of political misuse
Although the constitutional provision for impeachment is widely regarded as necessary, analysts warn that its misuse could weaken democratic institutions.
Nepal's past experience has raised concerns that impeachment motions may at times be used as instruments of political retaliation, to influence pending court cases or to pressure the judiciary.
Under the Constitution, a public official is automatically suspended once an impeachment motion is registered.
Analysts caution that filing impeachment motions without compelling evidence or clear constitutional grounds could create a chilling effect within the judiciary, discouraging judges from making independent decisions.
A judiciary that fears political consequences, they argue, cannot dispense impartial and fearless justice.
External concerns and Nepal's responsibility
Although the concerns raised by international organizations have sparked debate over their involvement in Nepal's domestic affairs, analysts say the issues they highlighted—particularly the possibility of political influence over the judiciary and the misuse of impeachment—deserve serious discussion.
Parliament has the responsibility to protect its constitutional authority, but it must also assure citizens that impeachment will be invoked only on the basis of clear constitutional grounds and credible evidence, not political interests or personal disagreements.
Experts suggest that the Parliamentary Impeachment Recommendation Committee should function independently of partisan influence and follow a transparent, evidence-based investigative process.
Protecting Parliament's constitutional authority is important, they say, but preserving the independence and credibility of the judiciary—one of the cornerstones of democratic governance—is equally vital.
Lessons from Nepal's impeachment history
Constitutional experts consistently describe impeachment as a constitutional safeguard rather than a political weapon.
Previous impeachment proceedings involving former Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) chief Lokman Singh Karki, former Chief Justice Sushila Karki and former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana have repeatedly sparked debate over whether the mechanism has always been exercised in the spirit envisioned by the Constitution.
The impeachment motion against Sushila Karki, in particular, drew criticism from sections of civil society and legal experts, who argued that it was politically motivated after some of her judicial decisions conflicted with the government's interests. The motion was later withdrawn.
Similarly, the impeachment motion against Cholendra Shumsher Rana remained unresolved after the parliamentary term expired, raising concerns that impeachment proposals can sometimes be used primarily to suspend officials rather than to reach a genuine constitutional conclusion.
These episodes continue to shape public perceptions of impeachment, reinforcing concerns that political considerations may overshadow constitutional principles if the process is not exercised with restraint and transparency.
The central question therefore remains: Will impeachment continue to serve as a constitutional safeguard that strengthens democracy and accountability, or will it increasingly become an instrument of political power?
The answer will ultimately depend not on the existence of the constitutional provision itself, but on how responsibly it is exercised. Used fairly and impartially, impeachment reinforces accountability and public trust. Used as a political tool, it risks weakening the very institutions it was created to protect.
