KATHMANDU, Nov 4: The government’s decision to remove Dan Bahadur Karki as Inspector General of Nepal Police (IGP) and appoint him as the Prime Minister’s security adviser on Wednesday may have come as a surprise, but it followed weeks of mounting tensions surrounding the police leadership.
Additional Inspector General Manoj KC has been appointed as the new police chief, while Karki has been reassigned to the Prime Minister’s Office. Although the government has described the move as a change of responsibility rather than disciplinary action, a series of controversies, disagreements and political considerations had increasingly weakened Karki’s position.
At the centre of the tensions were disagreements over the handling of high-profile investigations. Government sources have claimed that the Prime Minister Balendra Shah-led administration was dissatisfied with Karki over his alleged links with fixer Inam Sapkota, who was in police custody in connection with money laundering and banking offences. There were also allegations that Karki had leaked sensitive information and failed to act on directives from the Prime Minister’s Secretariat under various pretexts.
Karki, however, has denied having any improper relationship with Sapkota and reportedly suggested that he was removed for insisting on due legal procedures. Earlier reports had indicated that some sections of the government were unhappy with his reluctance to take action against influential individuals without following prescribed legal processes. The disagreement raised broader questions about the relationship between political authority and police independence.
The Sapkota controversy appears to have further strained relations between Karki and the government. According to sources, Shah had wanted to remove Karki during a regular Cabinet meeting the previous Thursday and had discussed the matter with Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairman Rabi Lamichhane a day earlier on October 28. Karki’s alleged connections with Sapkota were reportedly cited as a major reason for the proposed removal.
The situation became more contentious after a conversation between Supreme Court Justice Hari Phuyal and Sapkota came to light. Reports also emerged that Kumar Ben, a political adviser to Prime Minister Shah, had kept Sapkota’s mobile phone for two days. Police insiders believe these developments further fuelled dissatisfaction with IGP Karki, eventually leading to an emergency Cabinet meeting and his removal on Wednesday.
A source close to the Prime Minister’s Secretariat claimed that information involving the Prime Minister’s adviser and other sensitive matters had reached the media, with Karki suspected of leaking it. The source also said Karki had met Shah privately and questioned Kumar Ben while the Sapkota investigation was underway. Details of the meeting subsequently appeared in the media, further aggravating the dispute. These claims have not been independently established.
Determination to succeed
Procurement Controversies
The tensions were not limited to high-profile investigations. Procurement controversies had already weakened the police leadership's position, particularly allegations of irregularities in purchasing uniforms for temporary police personnel recruited for the House of Representatives (HoR) election. The issue raised questions about transparency and accountability within the force and reached Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, which formed a subcommittee to investigate.
The controversy took a political turn when RSP lawmaker Khagendra Sunar levelled serious allegations against Karki during a committee meeting. The exchange between the lawmaker and the police chief became heated, exposing tensions between the police leadership and the ruling party.
Allegations of irregularities in procuring shoes, socks and other supplies for police personnel added to the scrutiny. Claims that complaints had been filed with the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) against Karki and other officials also surfaced, although these allegations have not necessarily been established.
Political Preferences and Internal Divisions
The appointment of KC as Karki’s successor also appears to have a longer political background. Sources familiar with the Prime Minister’s circle say Shah and his associates had favoured KC for the top police post even before Karki’s appointment. KC had ranked third in the seniority list when the previous government led by Sushila Karki selected Dan Bahadur Karki, who was then the senior-most Additional Inspector General.
Sources said Shah’s circle had developed a favourable view of KC during an earlier political dispute involving the investigation into the fake Bhutanese refugee scam and efforts to arrest Nepali Congress (NC) leader Arzu Rana Deuba, when Shah was still serving as Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC). According to a source, following a change of government after NC forged alliance with the KP Oli-led CPN-UML, attempts were made to strip KC of responsibilities and block his promotion. The matter reportedly reached the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, prompting discussions about appointing him as IGP. The issue was also raised with then Home Minister Om Prakash Aryal, sources said.
Former Prime Minister Sushila Karki, however, chose Dan Bahadur Karki, citing concerns that bypassing the seniority list could create complications. Rajan Adhikari and Manoj KC ranked second and third, respectively. KC’s appointment following Karki’s removal has therefore revived questions about whether political preferences influenced the change in police leadership.
Meanwhile, signs of internal strain within Nepal Police had become increasingly visible in recent weeks. Amid speculation about his removal, Karki convened an unusually large meeting at police headquarters on October 29, bringing together police chiefs from all seven provinces, AIGs, DIGs and senior Kathmandu Valley officials. Discussions reportedly focused on rumours of his removal, allegations of a campaign against the police organization and leaks of investigation-related information.
The meeting itself underscored the unease within the organization. Reports that Karki had urged senior officers not to work against one another or take internal disputes outside the institution suggested that the leadership was grappling with more than external political pressure. Reports of friction between IGP Karki and AIG Manoj KC, who has now succeeded him, further exposed divisions within the police hierarchy.
Taken together, these developments point to a police leadership caught between political expectations, demands for institutional accountability and the need to preserve professional independence. Procurement allegations damaged its public credibility, while disputes over investigations and alleged information leaks raised concerns about the confidentiality and impartiality of police work. KC’s appointment has further brought the question of political influence over police leadership into sharper focus.
The Legal Question
Beyond the political and institutional controversies, the government's decision to remove Karki raises a fundamental legal question: Can it terminate an IGP's tenure before its completion simply by invoking its executive authority?
Although government Spokesperson Sasmit Pokharel, who is also Minister for Education and Sports, described the move as a change of responsibility, the decision effectively removes Karki from the top police post. Appointed in November 2025, he had one year and five months remaining in his tenure. Rule 127 of the Nepal Police Regulations, 2014 BS, prescribes a four-year term for the IGP. However, Section 9(2) of the Police Act, 2012, states that police personnel remain in office at the government's discretion. The government could invoke this provision to defend its decision, but that does not necessarily establish that its discretion is unrestricted.
Section 11 of the same Act also lays down procedures governing departmental action, including the need to document the grounds for dismissal, details of the charges and investigation, and whether the concerned official was given an opportunity to defend himself. Whether this provision applies to Karki's removal will depend partly on how the government has legally characterised its decision. If it amounts to disciplinary dismissal, compliance with the prescribed procedures becomes particularly important. If the government instead relies on its discretionary authority under Section 9(2), the scope and limits of that power could become the central issue in court.
The government's argument that Karki has merely been reassigned as the Prime Minister's security adviser does little to resolve this legal ambiguity. The position is outside Nepal Police and is essentially a political appointment. Changing his designation does not alter the fact that he has been removed from the IGP's post before completing his prescribed tenure.
Karki is reportedly preparing to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday. He could argue that his removal was arbitrary, unlawful or motivated by improper considerations. The court will have to examine the Cabinet's decision, the legal provisions invoked and whether the government followed the required procedures. An interim order staying the implementation of the decision is also possible, although its issuance cannot be presumed.
Nepal has faced a similar controversy before. In April, 1997, then Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam removed IGP Achyut Krishna Kharel just 36 days after his appointment and transferred him to the National Investigation Department. Kharel challenged the decision in court, but his eventual reinstatement came through a Cabinet decision under the government led by Surya Bahadur Thapa following a change of government, not through a SC interim order. The episode illustrates how political changes can influence police leadership, although it does not conclusively settle the legal questions surrounding Karki's removal.
Ultimately, the issue goes beyond Karki or his successor. It concerns the institutional independence of Nepal Police and the security of tenure of its leadership. While the government has the authority to appoint an IGP, that power should not automatically translate into unrestricted discretion to remove a serving police chief. If the four-year tenure prescribed by law can be cut short without clearly established grounds and due process, it risks becoming little more than a formality.
The SC may now have to determine where the government's discretionary authority ends and the legal protection of a police chief's tenure begins. More importantly, the controversy should prompt a broader debate about insulating Nepal Police from political interferece while ensuring accountability within the organization. Changing the IGP may resolve an immediate political or administrative dispute, but it will not address the institutional weaknesses that allowed the controversy to escalate in the first place.
-1793781552.webp)
