Supreme Court justices questioned Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s leadership at a full-court meeting on Monday, a day after police took former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana from his home and held him for about 12 hours before releasing him.

The justices said the Supreme Court had become embroiled in controversy within months of Sharma’s appointment, citing renewed activity by court middlemen and growing public scrutiny of how justice is administered.

The detention of Rana, who was taken from his Maharajgunj residence shortly after midnight on Sunday, also unsettled the justices. Police did not show his family an arrest warrant and later said he had been taken to a safe place because of a security threat. He was released at about 2pm on Sunday.

When the Supreme Court opened on Monday, several justices said Rana’s detention had raised serious concerns about their own security. They feared serving justices could also be taken from their homes, especially as the court continues to hear cases against government decisions and issue interim orders.

“Cases challenging government decisions come before the court every day, and we issue various orders, including interim orders. If a former chief justice can be taken from his home in the name of providing security, what prevents the police from doing the same to a serving justice?” one justice told Kantipur.

The issue was also raised in the full-court meeting.

“By morning, there was a sense of fear among us. After the bench lottery, some justices approached the chief justice and asked him to call a full court meeting to discuss the incident,” another justice said. “He initially hesitated, but when we insisted that the court needed to discuss the matter and take a position, he agreed.”

After deciding to convene the full court at 2pm, Sharma and some of the justices consulted and sent a team, including Chief Registrar Bimal Paudel, to meet Rana. “We went to where he was staying and discussed the incident in detail,” an employee who was part of the team said. “When we returned, we briefed the full court on everything.”

Paudel confirmed to Kantipur that he had gone to meet Rana before the full-court meeting, but declined to discuss what they had talked about.

According to a member of the team, Rana said he had asked the police who came to his home to show him an arrest warrant. The police told him they were taking him into custody because of a security threat, and seized his mobile phone after taking him to the police office, he said. Rana also said police prepared a document at the office stating that he faced a security threat and asked him to sign it. When he refused, his son, Sachindra Shumsher Rana, signed it, according to the account he gave the team.

The full-court meeting began at about 2pm and continued until 7pm. Chief Registrar Paudel was not present for the meeting itself.

According to a justice who attended, one or two justices raised relatively moderate questions, while most pressed the chief justice on a series of issues. “Justice Binod Sharma was away inspecting a district court. Apart from him, all the other justices raised concerns about the recent developments at the Supreme Court,” the justice said.

The justices’ main concern was the reported return of middlemen operating around the Supreme Court. They also asked Sharma whether he had been in contact with Rana. The meeting also addressed allegations of manipulation involving the Constitutional Bench and complaints about the conduct of judges at the Special Court.

Several justices questioned why so many concerns had surfaced within just four months of Sharma taking office. Sharma was recommended as chief justice by the Constitutional Council led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah and took office in May. His selection had itself drawn criticism because he was fourth in the seniority order, bypassing senior justices including Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Prasad Phuyal. 

“You have been chief justice for only four months, yet the court is already facing questions about middlemen and the Rana detention incident. We justices already work under security threats. If a former chief justice can be taken to a police station without a warrant, what protection do serving justices have?” justices asked the chief justice.

“Most justices said the chief justice must address these concerns,” a justice told Kantipur. 

Senior-most justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and justices Hari Prasad Phuyal, Bal Krishna Dhakal, Meghraj Pokharel, Sunil Kumar Pokharel and Tek Prasad Dhungana, among others, sought answers from Sharma on similar concerns.

The justices also raised concerns about the Special Court. They said complaints about the conduct of some of its judges, including its recently appointed chair, Basudev Acharya, had reached the Supreme Court but had not been addressed. Given the court’s sensitive role, they urged Sharma to ensure it did not become a place where judicial outcomes could be bought or influenced, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Justices also expressed concern that the Supreme Court, which had adopted a tough approach towards court intermediaries in recent years, appeared to be seeing their activities resurface.

They urged Sharma to focus on addressing problems within the judiciary rather than simply making assurances about them. “We told the chief justice to examine why the court has become embroiled in such controversy within just four months of his taking office, to the point that the issues had to be brought before the full court,” another justice said.

The justices said they needed the chief justice to assure them that they could carry out their duties independently, without fear or intimidation.

Sharma said he would address the issues raised at the meeting and move forward on that basis. According to another justice, however, the chief justice appeared defensive for much of the meeting.

Most justices also called for cases before the Constitutional Bench to be assigned through the same lottery system used for other benches. They said the current system for listing cases had raised questions about how hearings were being scheduled and urged the court to adopt a random allocation process.

Responding to the concerns, Sharma said he was committed to protecting the court’s independence and effectiveness. He acknowledged that mistakes may have been made and said he would address them and make improvements going forward. The full court agreed to issue a statement addressing the concerns raised during the meeting.