Nearly two months after the government launched an ambitious drive to scrutinise the assets of officials who have held positions since 2006, including public office holders ranging from local government chiefs to the prime minister, participation has fallen short of expectations.

A commission headed by former Supreme Court justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari was formed for the exercise.

Although more than 25,000 people are estimated to be required to submit asset declarations, only around 10,000 have complied so far. Instead of gaining momentum, the campaign has faced growing resistance, with former judges openly challenging the panel’s legal standing and urging colleagues to boycott the process.

The body was forced to extend its original one-month deadline until July 16 after failing to collect the expected number of filings.

According to officials, submissions have increased in recent weeks, and they expect the total to rise significantly by the extended deadline.

The commission has been tasked with collecting, verifying and investigating the assets of senior political office holders and high-ranking government officials who have served since 2006.

Besides the roughly 10,000 filings received so far, around 3,000 complaints have also been registered demanding probes into the wealth of various public figures.

However, as the panel steps up efforts to collect filings, opposition from former judges has become increasingly public.

The Forum Judges Forum, Nepal, has announced that its members will not submit asset disclosures and has urged all retired judges to follow its decision. Despite the boycott, two former chief justices and six former Supreme Court justices have already filed their records.

On Wednesday, former Supreme Court justice Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada released a 40-page legal opinion declaring the asset investigation body unconstitutional and said he would not submit his asset disclosure. Instead, he publicly made his holdings known through the media.

Khatiwada retired from the apex court only recently and was widely regarded as an uncontroversial figure during his tenure. His move is expected to deepen the confrontation between the panel and former members of the judiciary, particularly as a legal challenge remains pending before the Supreme Court.

“I don’t consider it appropriate, necessary or lawful to submit my asset disclosure to the government-formed Property Inquiry Commission, 2026,” Khatiwada wrote. “The body was constituted under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court justice Bhandari in violation of Article 132(2) of the Constitution.”

He also laid out what he described as constitutional and legal grounds for refusing to cooperate.

According to Khatiwada, the body is itself unconstitutional because it is chaired by a retired Supreme Court justice.

“It would not be appropriate for me to submit my asset disclosure to an unconstitutionally formed property inquiry commission,” he said. “Merely labelling a body a commission, committee or task force does not alter its legal character. In my view, it remains a government office, and its office-bearers continue to hold public office.”

Former judges argue that retired judges are under no legal obligation to submit disclosures to the body formed under the Commission of Inquiry Act.

On May 31, the former judges’ organisation issued a statement saying its meeting in Kathmandu had decided not to cooperate.

“The notice requiring retired judges to submit disclosures contradicts the constitutional protections, immunity and judicial independence guaranteed after retirement,” the statement said.

The forum says its position is grounded in constitutional provisions and the Judicial Council Act, 2016.

Forum chairman Top Bahadur Singh argued that the Constitution does not require judges to submit disclosures to bodies established under the Commission of Inquiry Act.

Khatiwada also said he had already submitted his disclosures to the Judicial Council while serving as a judge and argued that former judges cannot be required to repeatedly disclose their assets each time a new panel is formed.

He maintained that only judges removed through impeachment under Article 101 of the Constitution or dismissed on grounds of misconduct under Articles 142(1)(c) and 149(6)(c), following a recommendation by the Judicial Council, could be subjected to such scrutiny.

He further argued that Article 153(5) and (6) of the Constitution grant the Judicial Council exclusive authority to investigate judges, from the chief justice of the Supreme Court to district court judges, and that no other body or law can override that mandate.

Article 153(5) says that if an initial inquiry into a complaint against a judge indicates that a detailed investigation by experts is necessary, the Judicial Council may form an inquiry committee. Subsection (6) authorises the council to investigate judges, other than those liable to impeachment, for corruption or abuse of office and initiate legal proceedings where warranted.

The Judicial Council Act also requires judges to submit annual asset disclosures to the council. Section 29 states that members of the Judicial Council and judges must file details of their own and their family’s assets within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year. Subsection (3) further stipulates that such disclosures must remain confidential.

Singh argued that the same confidentiality provisions continue to apply after retirement, making it unlawful to require former judges to submit disclosures to the government-formed panel.

The government announced the Bhandari-led four-member panel on April 15.

Its members include former justices Chandi Raj Dhakal and Purushottam Parajuli, former deputy inspector general Ganesh KC, and chartered accountant Prakash Lamsal.

After Prime Minister Shah took office, the Cabinet decided on March 27 to establish the body within 15 days.

The panel has been assigned the responsibility for collecting, verifying and investigating assets of senior political office holders and high-ranking government officials who have served since 2006.

It formally began work on April 22 and issued its first public notice on May 14, asking those concerned to submit their records within one month.

When both in-person and online filings remained well below expectations, the deadline was extended until July 16.

“The response to the call for filings was not as strong as we had expected, which is why the deadline was extended,” Bhandari said. “There were several reasons and practical difficulties behind the low turnout. We expect the number of submissions to triple by the end of the extended deadline.”

Annual asset disclosure already mandatory

Judges and civil servants are already required to submit annual asset disclosures while in office.

Judges file their disclosures with the Judicial Council, while civil servants submit them to the Department of Personnel Records (Civil), which maintains personnel records.

Section 50(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002 requires all public officials to submit updated disclosures of their own and their family’s assets, including the sources of those assets, within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year.

For judges, however, the Judicial Council Act requires those disclosures to remain confidential.

Section 50(2) of the Corruption Act allows an extension of up to 30 days if a public official is unable to submit the disclosure within the prescribed deadline and provides a valid reason.

“The person who fails to submit an asset disclosure within the prescribed period shall be fined Rs10,000. An investigation may also be initiated on the presumption that the individual or the individual’s family possesses illegally acquired assets,” the Act states.

Many officials who have been submitting annual disclosures have complained that creating another body and requiring them to provide fresh explanations for the same assets is unnecessarily burdensome.

This is not Nepal’s first attempt to investigate the wealth of public officials.

On March 8, 2002, the government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba formed the Judicial Commission for Property Inquiry under the chairmanship of then Supreme Court justice Bhairab Prasad Lamsal after allegations that public officials had amassed unexplained wealth.

The panel spent 13 months preparing its report and submitted it to then King Gyanendra Shah on March 18, 2003. The report, however, was never made public.