The Supreme Court held a full-court meeting after police took former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana into custody from his home in the early hours of Sunday and held him for about 12 hours before releasing him. The meeting objected to the government’s action while also pledging to keep the administration of justice free from both external and internal influence.

The incident has also brought to the surface simmering discontent over Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma’s appointment, his leadership style, the formation of the Constitutional Bench and factionalism within the judiciary.

The crisis could become an opportunity to address long-standing concerns over judicial appointments, the Constitutional Bench and the influence of court middlemen. But if it remains an internal power struggle, it could further undermine the Supreme Court’s independence and public trust.

Here are five questions that help explain what happened:

Why is Rana’s detention considered unprecedented?

At around midnight on September 26, police, acting on government orders, took Rana into custody from his residence in Maharajgunj without an arrest warrant. He was released into his family’s care about 12 hours later.

In the 75 years since Hari Prasad Pradhan was appointed chief justice in 1951, 32 people, including Sharma, have held the post. None had previously been taken into custody in this manner. The move was particularly unusual in a country where even ordinary citizens are protected by constitutional guarantees against detention without due process.

What explanation has the government given?

Police initially confirmed that Rana had been taken into custody. They later said he had been moved to a secure location because of a ‘security threat’ from a Gen Z group.

Sasmit Pokharel, Government spokesperson and Minister for Education and Sports, subsequently said Rana had to be ‘rescued’ because of a threat from an unidentified group.

But the government has yet to explain what the threat was, who posed it, or why a team from the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office had to take Rana from his home in the middle of the night.

What message did the Supreme Court’s full court send?

The justices called for a full-court meeting, a request Chief Justice Sharma could not reject. In a four-paragraph statement issued on September 28 by court spokesperson Arjun Prasad Koirala, the justices appeared to send two distinct messages.

First, they objected to the government’s treatment of Rana, saying that detaining him without due legal process was arbitrary and unacceptable in a democratic system. The statement described former office-holders, including former chief justices and judges, as an integral part of an independent judiciary and urged state agencies to treat judicial personnel with sensitivity.

In other words, the court treated Rana’s detention as a matter of serious concern even though he is no longer a sitting judge.

Second, the court urged all concerned not to link judicial proceedings to any former office-holder and pledged that the administration of justice would not be subjected to ‘even the slightest’ external or internal influence.

Why is the word ‘internal’ significant?

Officials at the prime minister’s office, some Rastriya Swatantra Party leaders and some lawyers have informally alleged that Rana continued to influence major political and economic cases after his retirement through his contacts with sitting justices.

Whether those allegations are true or not, the court’s reference to ‘internal’ influence appears intended to reassure the public that judicial proceedings remain free from such pressures.

The incident also reflects longstanding tensions within the court. Justices reportedly questioned Sharma’s relationship with Rana and its possible impact on the administration of justice.

Where did the discontent within the court begin, and what happens next?

The Constitutional Council led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah recommended Sharma as chief justice on May 7, 2026, by a majority vote despite written objections from two members. Sharma, who was fourth in seniority, was chosen ahead of senior justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi and Hari Prasad Phuyal.

It was the first time the convention of appointing the most senior justice as chief justice had been broken. But no clear or transparent criteria were introduced to explain the departure.

According to legal experts, Sharma has since made appointments, transfers and promotions without clear criteria and departed from the convention of assigning senior justices to the Constitutional Bench. During the full-court meeting, questions were also reportedly raised about the formation of the Constitutional Bench, allegations of corruption involving the Special Court, the activities of court middlemen and the chief justice’s working style.

Senior advocate Satish Krishna Kharel said he had not heard of any personal wrongdoing by Sharma. But he said disorder and corruption had become increasingly widespread in the judiciary during this period.

The current discontent could force the court to confront deeper problems within the judiciary. But if it turns into an internal power struggle over leadership and influence, it could further weaken the institution and public trust.

Read the full story here.