Rumours of an impending impeachment motion against Supreme Court justices have spilled into the international arena, turning an internal judicial dispute into a high-stakes confrontation.

The escalating controversy follows a joint statement issued on Friday by three prominent global human rights organisations—Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists—claiming they received credible information that three apex court justices were being pressured to resign under threat of impeachment.

However, they have not made public the reports or any other evidence on which they based their claims. Talking to Kantipur, a representative of one of the organisations said that the joint statement had been issued on the basis of credible information they had received, but declined to disclose the source of that information or provide any further details.

Nirajan Thapaliya, Director of Amnesty International Nepal, said that the three organisations had issued their statement not on the basis of any written report but on information received from credible and highly reliable sources. He added that they continue to stand by their position.

"We do not have any report provided by anyone. However, we issued this statement on the basis of information we received from credible and highly reliable sources," said Thapaliya.

The allegations have drawn sharp rejections from the government and the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). Authorities insisted that no such coercion or impeachment plans were ever conceived.

Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Sobita Gautam dismissed the charges, arguing that the executive branch would never cross such constitutional boundaries. "As a student of law, I am exceptionally clear about the limits of government power and the delicate sensitivity required when dealing with the judiciary," said Gautam. She further challenged the international organisations to substantiate their claims publicly. "Those who issued the statement must verify their claims. Making mere accusations is insufficient."

Echoing her stance, RSP General Secretary Bipin Acharya labeled the charges baseless, stating that the governing party had not even contemplated initiating an impeachment motion against any justices.

Despite official denials, the international involvement has intensified scrutiny over internal Supreme Court dynamics. Observers note that the friction within the judiciary worsened after the Constitutional Council recommended Justice Manoj Sharma—the fourth senior justice—for appointment as Chief Justice, bypassing established convention of seniority. Senior-most Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla publicly opposed the break with tradition. Sharma subsequently took leave for several weeks before returning to his judicial responsibilities.

Legal experts and former jurists warn that the ongoing public hostility between international watchdogs and the government poses a grave threat to the judicial system.

Former Supreme Court Justice Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada took to social media to reflect on the situation, raising critical questions regarding the veracity of the claims. Khatiwada noted that while everyone hopes the allegations mentioned by the three rights groups are proven false, baseless accusations or real threats both severely undermine judicial dignity. Speaking later, Khatiwada emphasised that once serious allegations are raised in the public domain, clear and transparent answers must follow to restore public trust.

Former Supreme Court Justice Top Bahadur Singh, who currently serves as the president of the Former Judges Forum, warned that external political pressure dismantles the foundational principles of a fair trial. "When a justice sits on the bench to dispense justice, they must sit free from both external pressure and improper influence," said Singh. "When rumours circulate outside that an impeachment motion is being prepared or that a resignation is being demanded, it creates direct pressure on the fair execution of justice. Judges cannot perform their duties impartially under such circumstances."

Within the Supreme Court, serving justices acknowledged that impeachment talk had been circulating through informal conversations for weeks. Out of four sitting justices interviewed by Kantipur, three confirmed hearing the rumours, describing such political maneuvering as destructive to the legal system.

"Punitive measures based on an objective evaluation of judicial performance are acceptable, but actions driven by political prejudice will destroy the judiciary," a sitting Supreme Court justice said on condition of anonymity. "Today, a specific justice may be targeted, but this dangerous precedent will spare no one in the future. The direct victim of this exercise will be the delivery of justice."

Another sitting justice expressed deep concern that the judiciary might relapse into past crises, recalling previous impeachment motions against former chief justices Sushila Karki and Cholendra Shamsher Rana.

Political parties are alleged to be utilising impeachment powers as a tool to intimidate the bench rather than enforce accountability. The 2017 impeachment motion against Sushila Karki was eventually withdrawn following public outrage, while the 2022 motion against Cholendra Shamsher Rana effectively sidelined him until his retirement without ever reaching a definitive parliamentary vote.

"If a justice lacks competence or commits a serious crime, they must not be granted immunity. However, if justices are removed simply because the government does not receive favorable rulings or due to political bias, where does judicial independence remain?” said another sitting justice. "The government must not entangle itself in such disputes. The executive must do its job and allow the judiciary to function independently; both branches must strictly respect their constitutional boundaries."

Defending the intervention of global watchdogs, senior advocate Raju Chapagai noted that international human rights institutions operate under specific investigative methodologies. Chapagai, a former legal advisor to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said the primary objective of such organisations is to safeguard judicial integrity.

"Rather than demanding evidence regarding why these three institutions issued the statement, the government must understand the underlying message in a timely manner," said Chapagai. "The independence of the judiciary is not merely a domestic matter. It is an international concern."

Under Article 101(2) of the Constitution of Nepal, one-fourth of the House of Representatives can file an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice or Supreme Court justices on grounds of serious constitutional violations, incompetence, or gross misconduct. The motion can be endorsed with a two-thirds majority.

Given the ruling party’s strong parliamentary strength (182 seats in 275-member House of Representatives), the government commands the numbers required to register and pass such a motion. However, legal experts maintain that using extraordinary constitutional powers as political leverage threatens the bedrock of constitutional democracy.