A parliamentary committee in Nepal has directed the government to seek an explanation from three international human rights organisations over a joint statement critical of recent developments in the country's judiciary, drawing criticism from rights advocates who question the committee’s jurisdiction to take up the matter.

The House of Representatives' Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee instructed the government on Wednesday to ask Amnesty International, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Human Rights Watch to provide evidence supporting claims made in a joint statement issued on July 24. The government had already rejected the statement and lodged its objections before the committee's intervention.

The three organisations had expressed concern over what they described as growing political interference in Nepal's judiciary. They alleged that three Supreme Court justices had been pressured to resign under the threat of impeachment. They also criticised the government's ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act and questioned the recommendation of Manoj Kumar Sharma as chief justice, saying it departed from the convention of appointing the senior-most serving justice.

The parliamentary committee, chaired by Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker Samikshya Baskota, took up the issue after another committee member, Yagya Mani Neupane, formally requested a discussion.

Following the meeting, the committee directed the government to seek a formal clarification from the three organisations, asking them to submit documentary evidence supporting the allegations contained in their statement. It also instructed the government to report back to the committee in writing.

In a separate directive, the committee asked the government to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of domestic and international non-governmental organisations to ensure they operate only within the objectives approved under project agreements signed with the Social Welfare Council.

The committee's move has drawn criticism from human rights defenders, who questioned whether Parliament should be debating statements issued by international rights groups while neglecting its primary responsibility of holding the government accountable.

They also questioned whether parliamentary committees would scrutinise statements issued by other international organisations in a similar manner and what consequences, if any, would follow if the organisations declined to respond.

"The role of parliamentary committees is to scrutinise government actions and address public concerns, not to deliberate on press statements issued by national or international organisations," rights advocates argued.

Senior advocate Bipin Adhikari, who appeared before the committee as an expert witness, said international human rights organisations were entitled to comment on human rights issues and that their statements should not automatically be viewed as foreign interference.

"Nepal has long enjoyed a positive international reputation on human rights. That reputation did not emerge overnight," Adhikari told the committee. "It reflects decades of commitment, and these organisations played a constructive role during Nepal's conflict years and other difficult periods."

He said the joint statement was not a formal human rights report on Nepal but an assessment of recent developments affecting judicial independence.

According to Adhikari, it was not unreasonable for the organisations to question the government's departure from the long-established convention of appointing the chief justice according to seniority within the Supreme Court or to raise concerns about the Constitutional Council ordinance.

"The authorities can say, 'We will investigate these allegations. Please provide the evidence you have,'" Adhikari said. "But human rights organisations have the right to protect their sources. They can either provide credible information to support their claims or acknowledge if their report was incorrect."

Adhikari said he did not believe the organisations had issued the statement without verification. Rather than reacting defensively, he argued, the government should have acknowledged the concerns and explained why it believed the allegations were inaccurate.

Committee member Gita Gurung said the committee's mandate under Article 97 of the constitution and parliamentary rules was to evaluate the performance of the government, not to debate statements issued by international organisations.

Another lawmaker, Ninu Karn, also opposed the discussion.

"If Amnesty and the others have raised questions, are those questions directed at this committee or at the government?" she asked. “If that is the case, should we sever ties with all international organisations? Does having a majority mean we should stop engaging with every international institution?”

Lawmaker Saraswati Lama said foreign organisations should refrain from commenting on Nepal's internal affairs but stressed that neither the government nor parliamentary committees should expect unquestioning support when they act improperly.

Constitutional expert and former Constituent Assembly member Khim Lal Devkota, another expert invited to testify, said organisations such as Amnesty, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch were expected to be impartial and rely on multiple sources before issuing public statements.

He said the government was justified in asking what evidence supported the allegations, particularly because the statement did not appear to include the government's response. However, he suggested that any engagement should be handled through diplomatic channels.

Most lawmakers from the Rastriya Swatantra Party supported the committee's decision to debate the issue, including petitioner Yagya Mani Neupane, along with Sajida Khatun Siddiqui, Manmaya Bishwakarma, Prakash Chandra Pariyar, Sulav Kharel, Khima BK, Rubina Acharya and Mohan Lal Acharya.

Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Sobita Gautam defended the government's position, describing the joint statement as objectionable and insisting that the organisations must substantiate their claims.

She denied that the government had pressured any Supreme Court justice to resign or discussed impeachment proceedings.

"External organisations should not make political observations about Nepal," Gautam said. "Questions relating to Nepal's sovereignty and the interests of its people are not matters on which outside organisations should pass judgment. That is why the government objects to the joint statement."

The minister argued that the three international organisations had remained silent when previous governments amended the Constitutional Council Act through ordinances, but chose to speak out only after the Rastriya Swatantra Party-led government introduced similar legislation.

"The claim that the government pressured the judiciary is entirely baseless," Gautam told the parliamentary committee. "If anyone can produce verifiable evidence that such pressure was exerted, I am prepared to take action."

The committee's directive has alarmed legal and human rights experts, who warn that the committee appears to be moving beyond its constitutional oversight role by urging the executive to seek explanations from international rights organisations over their assessment of Nepal's judiciary.

Senior advocate Raju Chapagain, a former legal adviser to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, described the committee's decision as troubling.

He said it was particularly concerning that a parliamentary committee tasked with holding the government accountable on human rights had instead instructed the government to demand explanations from internationally recognised rights organisations.

"It sends the wrong message when a parliamentary committee effectively encourages the government to take a punitive approach towards organisations based in London, Geneva and New York that have monitored human rights around the world for decades," Chapagain said.

He said the development was especially disappointing given that the Rastriya Swatantra Party, the government it leads, and a Parliament backed by an almost two-thirds majority all emerged from the Gen Z movement, which called for human rights, social justice and good governance.

Chapagain urged both the government and Parliament to carefully consider the long-term consequences such actions could have for Nepal's international human rights standing.

Rather than escalating tensions, he said, the government should engage the organisations through constructive dialogue to clear up any misunderstandings.

After questions were raised over the joint statement, Kantipur sought responses from representatives of two of the organisations operating in Nepal: Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists.

Mandira Sharma, the ICJ's regional director, said the organisations relied on multiple sources of information and had issued the statement as an early warning on a matter they considered highly sensitive.

She said the ICJ had also criticised previous governments over judicial reforms and viewed the current government's willingness to respond as a positive development.

"The independence of the judiciary is an international human rights issue," Sharma said.

Nirajan Thapaliya, director of Amnesty International Nepal, said the organisation stood firmly by the statement, which he said was based on information obtained from credible and highly reliable sources.

"We did not receive a formal report from any individual," Thapaliya said. "Our position is based on information gathered from credible, high-level sources, and we continue to stand by it."

He said protecting the confidentiality of sources was a fundamental obligation of human rights organisations, and therefore Amnesty could not disclose where the information had come from.

Thapaliya said the purpose of the joint statement was not to create a confrontation with the government but to draw timely attention to what the organisations viewed as potential threats to judicial independence and the rule of law.

"We are not seeking to interfere in the constitutional roles of the government, Parliament or the judiciary," he said. "Our concerns are grounded in international human rights standards and Nepal's own international commitments. If the government disagrees with our assessment, we remain open to constructive dialogue."

He added that judicial independence, the rule of law and the protection of human rights are not merely domestic issues but matters linked to Nepal's obligations under international law. For that reason, he said, it is entirely legitimate for the international community to express concern over such developments.