Nepal’s Supreme Court witnessed high drama on Monday after acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla ordered the court administration to register a writ petition challenging the recommendation of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma as the next chief justice, but officials failed to comply with her directive.

The dispute centres on the Constitutional Council’s decision to recommend Sharma, who is fourth in seniority among Supreme Court justices. The recommendation departed from the long-established practice of appointing the senior-most judge for the country’s top judicial position.

On May 8, the Supreme Court administration had refused to register the writ petition challenging the recommendation made the previous day. After the petition remained pending for a week without being sent to a bench, senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, advocate Prem Raj Silwal and other petitioners approached Malla with complaints.

Following the complaints, Malla issued a three-page written order directing the administration to register the petition by 1pm on Monday and assign it for hearing on Tuesday. Despite the order, the petition remained unregistered until Monday evening.

Chief Registrar Bimal Paudel did not respond to repeated requests for comment. He instead referred queries to the court spokesperson and information officer. Supreme Court spokesperson Arjun Koirala said he was not in office on Monday but confirmed that the petition had not been registered by evening.

The dispute escalated on Monday after the administration continued to withhold applications filed by the petitioners against the initial refusal order issued on May 8.

Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Regulations, 2017 allows petitioners to directly approach the bench if the administration refuses to register a case.

“Any person dissatisfied with an order of the chief registrar or registrar may file an application before the bench within seven days,” the regulation states.

Petitioner Silwal said they approached the acting chief justice after the administration failed to present their application before a bench despite the expiry of the seven-day deadline.

In her written order, Malla stated that the chief registrar had informed judges that the petition had not been registered following instructions from Sharma, the judge recommended for chief justice.

According to a Supreme Court judge present at Monday morning’s meeting, Malla questioned Chief Registrar Paudel in front of judges about why the administration had failed to place the matter before the bench.

The judge said Paudel replied that the process had not moved ahead because the proposed chief justice had instructed officials not to register the petition.

Soon after the exchange, judges proceeded with their regular hearings while Malla prepared her written order through her secretariat. Court sources said Paudel left the court premises while the order was being drafted.

Speaking to Kantipur on Monday evening, Sharma declined to comment on the controversy.

The Constitutional Council had recommended Sharma on May 7 after the government introduced an ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act. The deadline for filing public complaints against Sharma before the Parliamentary Hearing Committee expired on Monday. The committee is scheduled to begin discussions on Tuesday.

Before Sharma’s recommendation, advocates Silwal and Gita Thapa had filed a writ petition on May 6 challenging the ordinance itself. The administration has neither registered nor formally rejected that petition.

After Sharma’s recommendation became public, Silwal and Tripathi submitted another petition at the Supreme Court. The administration refused to register the petition.

The petitioners later held a press conference and submitted a complaint to the Nepal Bar Association. After no hearing was scheduled for a week, they approached Malla on Monday.

In her order, Malla said the administration’s handling of the petition had obstructed judicial procedures and access to justice.

“Failure to register a petition filed in accordance with the law obstructs access to justice and violates established judicial procedures,” the order states.

Malla further wrote that delaying the registration process and keeping the matter pending in the writ registration section undermined the fairness, impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

After receiving Malla’s order, the petitioners approached Chief Registrar Paudel and Registrar Man Bahadur Karki, who is responsible for case registration. According to the petitioners, Paudel left the court premises citing a meeting, while Karki asked them to wait while he reviewed the file but later became unreachable. The petitioners remained at the court throughout the day waiting for the officials to return.

After learning that the administration had not complied with her order, Malla held discussions with justices present at the Supreme Court. Justices Kumar Regmi, Hari Prasad Phuyal, Nahakul Subedi, Mahesh Sharma Paudel, Tek Prasad Dhungana, Bal Krishna Dhakal and Megh Raj Pokharel attended the meeting.

A delegation from the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) later met Malla and raised concerns over the administration’s refusal to implement an order issued by the officiating chief justice.

According to NBA officials present at the meeting, Malla said she was concerned about a situation in which petitions could be registered or blocked based on informal instructions rather than legal procedure.

During the meeting, NBA President Bijaya Kumar Mishra and General Secretary Kedar Koirala said the developments had created a public perception that the Supreme Court was operating under two centres of authority, one led by the acting chief justice and another influenced by the incoming chief justice.

Koirala said the Bar had suggested convening an immediate full court meeting to issue an official position on the matter.

Former Supreme Court justice Girish Chandra Lal described the developments as disturbing.

“The Supreme Court should avoid such controversies,” Lal said. “It is unfortunate to hear that an order issued by a Supreme Court judge has not been implemented. The judiciary has already gone through many controversies, and we had hoped such situations would not repeat.”

Former justice Krishna Jung Rayamajhi said new officials in the government should be given time before any conclusions are drawn about their performance.

“In the past, judicial appointments were not openly influenced by political interests in this way,” he said. “The present situation is partly the result of those practices.”

According to a Supreme Court judge, both Sharma and Chief Registrar Paudel have institutional reasons for delaying the petition.

If the petition against the refusal order is registered and accepted by a single bench, the matter could proceed to the Constitutional Bench. Since Sharma’s parliamentary hearing and endorsement process is expected to take several days, court officials say a hearing this week could affect the recommendation process.

As acting chief justice, Malla retains the authority to constitute the Constitutional Bench. Court officials said that if the bench is formed on the basis of seniority, it could include Malla along with Justices Kumar Regmi, Hari Prasad Phuyal, Nahakul Subedi and Binod Sharma.

According to a judge close to Sharma, there are concerns that the Constitutional Bench could issue an interim order suspending implementation of the ordinance and halting the recommendation process if the petition proceeds immediately.

If the petition remains unregistered through Tuesday and Wednesday, Sharma is expected to complete parliamentary endorsement and receive appointment from President Ramchandra Paudel before assuming office as the 33rd chief justice.

Following an emergency meeting on Monday, the Nepal Bar Association issued a five-point statement describing the administration’s refusal to implement the order as an obstruction to justice.

The NBA also objected to comments made in Parliament by lawmakers of the Rastriya Swatantra Party regarding the sub judice matter.

The association announced a symbolic protest at the Bar premises at 1:15pm on Tuesday, where lawyers plan to light lanterns in protest against what they described as irregular actions by the court administration.

“For some time, writ petitions involving constitutional issues have been returned by the Supreme Court administration, and even applications challenging those decisions have remained pending for long periods, obstructing access to justice,” the statement said.

NBA said the administration’s refusal to implement the acting chief justice’s order was unprecedented and warned that the incident would have legal and institutional consequences.

The statement also criticised discussion of the matter in the House of Representatives despite constitutional provisions barring parliamentary debate on sub judice cases.

“Article 105 of the constitution prohibits discussion in Parliament on matters under consideration before the courts,” the statement said.

NBA urged the Speaker to remove such remarks from the parliamentary record and prevent similar incidents in the future.

Petitioner Silwal said the lawyers would return to the apex court on Tuesday and continue pressing for registration of the petition until the matter reached a legal conclusion.

The controversy also led to heated exchanges in Parliament on Monday. After Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmakers questioned Malla’s order, CPN-UML lawmaker Ain Bahadur Mahar objected, citing Article 105 of the constitution.

“The constitution clearly prohibits discussion in Parliament on matters under consideration before the courts or on actions taken by judges in the course of their duties,” Mahar said. “The remarks made today violate the principle of separation of powers and undermine respect for the judiciary.”