International rights organisations have expressed concern over what they describe as growing political interference in Nepal’s judiciary, warning that recent government actions could undermine the independence of the courts and weaken the rule of law.

In a joint statement, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) stated that changes made to the Constitutional Council Act through an executive ordinance, along with reported pressure on senior Supreme Court justices, posed a serious threat to judicial independence.

The groups said the government’s decision in May to amend the Constitutional Council Act through an ordinance, rather than through parliamentary legislation, violated constitutional principles and raised concerns about the process for appointing officials to key constitutional bodies, including the chief justice.

The amendment changed the quorum and voting requirements of the Constitutional Council, the body responsible for recommending appointments to major constitutional positions. The rights organisations said the changes increased the possibility of political influence over judicial appointments because government representatives already hold a majority of seats on the council.

“The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of the rule of law and an essential safeguard for the protection of human rights,” Ian Seiderman, senior legal and policy director at the ICJ said in the statement. “Any reform of Nepal’s justice system should strengthen, not weaken, the independence, impartiality and integrity of the courts.”

The groups also questioned the appointment of Manoj Kumar Sharma as chief justice, saying it departed from Nepal’s long-standing practice of appointing the senior-most serving justice.

Although three senior judges remain on the Supreme Court, Sharma was appointed chief justice after being endorsed by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee. The organisations said complaints raised against his nomination were not subjected to meaningful public scrutiny.

The groups claimed that they had received credible reports that three senior Supreme Court justices, Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Phuyal, had been pressured to resign under the threat of impeachment.

They said they were not aware of any publicly stated allegations against the judges that would meet the constitutional requirements for impeachment.

Under Nepal’s constitution, the initiation of impeachment proceedings automatically suspends a judge until Parliament determines whether the charges are valid. The organisations warned that suspending three senior Supreme Court justices could significantly affect the court’s functioning at a time when it is hearing important constitutional cases challenging government decisions and executive actions.

“Using or threatening to use impeachment against judges without clear constitutional justification risks creating the perception that constitutional procedures are being used to influence the composition of the court and potentially the outcome of pending cases,” the groups said.

They noted that Nepal has previously faced criticism over attempts to use impeachment proceedings against judges in ways that could compromise judicial independence.

“Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on the competence and integrity of judges but also on the transparency, fairness and independence of judicial appointments,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Appointments or removals that appear susceptible to political influence undermine confidence in the administration of justice and weaken the rule of law.”

International standards require judges to be protected from improper influence, pressure, threats and interference. The removal of judges must be based on objective criteria and safeguarded against political manipulation, the organisations said.

The groups acknowledged that judicial reform may be necessary in Nepal but said any reform process should strengthen institutional independence, transparency and accountability rather than increase political control over the judiciary.

“The objective of judicial reform should be to build stronger, more independent institutions that enjoy public confidence, not institutions that are more vulnerable to political pressure,” said Isabelle Lassee, acting regional director for South Asia at Amnesty International.

The organisations urged the Nepal government to stop “exerting pressure on judges to resign and avoid impeachment proceedings” unless there are clearly established constitutional grounds and due process safeguards.

They also called on authorities to ensure that judicial appointments, including the appointment of the chief justice, are conducted through transparent, objective and merit-based procedures.

The groups further urged Parliament to review amendments to the Constitutional Council Act through an open legislative process and ensure that future judicial reforms comply with Nepal’s constitution, the principles of separation of powers, and international standards on judicial independence.