Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal says an alleged fixer, Inam Sapkota, approached him and other justices by claiming to represent Prime Minister Balendra Shah, offering protection from impeachment and later raising issues concerning pending court cases.

Phuyal said he and several other justices eventually grew suspicious of Sapkota’s activities and sent details of their communications, along with his photograph and contact number, to the prime minister’s office and the army chief’s secretariat.

Speaking to a group of journalists at the Supreme Court on Thursday, Phuyal said he had no financial dealings with Sapkota and had never entered into an arrangement to influence court proceedings. He called for a thorough investigation, adding that he was prepared to face action if investigators found him or other justices guilty of wrongdoing.

The controversy comes amid an investigation into alleged judicial corruption, with communications and details of transactions involving Sapkota and senior judicial figures becoming public.

Phuyal said Sapkota first approached him at a time when there was talk of filing impeachment motions against him and several other justices. According to Phuyal, Sapkota used acquaintances and a relative to establish contact, introduced himself as a resident of Jhapa and claimed to be close to the newly formed government.

“He introduced himself as a person working for Prime Minister Balendra Shah,” Phuyal said. Sapkota also claimed to be a medical doctor from a neighbouring country who worked secretly at an embassy, and said he had access to the ruling party’s chair, the inspector general of police and the chief of army staff.

Phuyal said Sapkota assured him that the justices would not face impeachment because of his connections with the government. He also claimed to have played a role in making Manoj Kumar Sharma the chief justice, Phuyal said.

The justice added that several other Supreme Court justices, as well as judges at the Special Court and high courts, had also been approached by Sapkota. The judges learnt about one another’s contact with him only later, when they began sharing their experiences, he said.

Phuyal acknowledged that the prospect of impeachment had made the judges anxious and that they initially saw Sapkota as a possible channel to the new prime minister.

For the first two months, their conversations were largely unremarkable, he said. Suspicion arose when Sapkota began raising issues concerning pending cases.

Phuyal said he had repeatedly rejected such approaches. He recalled warning Sapkota against discussing a case involving a controversial individual who had received an appointment in the insurance sector and was facing legal proceedings. Sapkota later raised another case, with some of the discussions taking place through messages, he said.

Other judges also felt pressured by similar messages, according to Phuyal. The judges eventually compared notes and began trying to verify Sapkota’s claims. He said Sapkota had shown particular interest in a case involving the Nepali Congress, while court officials had also experienced what Phuyal described as a similar pattern of communication.

Message about Rohit Gupta’s case

Phuyal also addressed messages concerning businessman Rohit Gupta, whose detention was being challenged in court.

According to the justice, a joint bench including him was hearing Gupta’s habeas corpus petition and a petition challenging the Special Court’s order to remand him in custody. After Phuyal entered the courtroom, Sapkota sent him a message invoking the prime minister’s name and urging the bench to dismiss Gupta’s petition and keep him in detention.

Phuyal said he saw the message only after returning home, as he usually left his phone behind when entering the courtroom.

The bench found no grounds to keep Gupta in custody and ordered him to be released on bail of Rs20 million, Phuyal said. He added that other businessmen, including Shekhar Golchha, had previously been released on bail in the same case and that the case file indicated Gupta had a lesser degree of responsibility than they did.

Phuyal said some justices discussed whether they should meet Sapkota if he was genuinely conveying a message on behalf of the prime minister. He subsequently suggested meeting at the Hotel Himalaya, and the meeting took place.

Phuyal declined to identify the other judges who attended.

At the meeting, Sapkota allegedly told the judges in a loud voice that the prime minister was unhappy with them and that impeachment proceedings would move forward. Phuyal said the encounter deepened their suspicions.

He also said the judges became concerned when Sapkota arranged for the hotel bill to be registered under someone else’s name when they tried to pay it.

Judges reported him to the government

Phuyal said he later contacted the inspector general of police’s secretariat to seek information about Sapkota. He was informally advised to be careful because Sapkota appeared to have links with high-profile individuals, he said.

According to Phuyal, the police had also told the judges informally that Sapkota was influential and that they should be cautious.

Sapkota subsequently placed particular emphasis on a habeas corpus petition filed by Deepak Bhatt, Phuyal said. The outcome was not what Sapkota wanted, prompting the judges to send further details to the prime minister’s office and the army chief’s secretariat.

The information included Sapkota’s photograph, telephone number and the communications the judges had received, he said.

The prime minister’s office replied that it had also heard rumours about Sapkota but had no information indicating that officials there had met or known him, according to Phuyal.

Phuyal said Sapkota was arrested a few days after the authorities took former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana into custody, reportedly for security reasons. He later learnt that Sapkota had allegedly used similar tactics to put pressure on people in the police and the army.

Phuyal said he and the other judges had informed the police about their concerns but decided to contact the prime minister’s office directly after receiving no assurance that the matter would be addressed.

“We were under considerable pressure, so we shared the information we had with the prime minister’s office,” he said.

He maintained that he had neither colluded with Sapkota nor acted with improper intent. He also denied having any financial dealings with him.

“Financial matters never came up in my conversations with him,” Phuyal said, adding that, to his knowledge, Sapkota asked people to help him or speak to others on his behalf rather than offering or seeking money.

The justice said he had raised the issue indirectly at a full court meeting after Rana was taken into custody, describing how people had begun approaching judges directly while claiming connections with the chief justice or the prime minister.

Phuyal said he was concerned that the public controversy had created confusion among people who use the courts. He apologised for that and called for a serious investigation.

He also disputed the completeness of a report published by Naya Patrika, saying he had provided his account and details of the information he submitted to the prime minister’s office.

Phuyal said he did not know how the communications became public. He reiterated that if the investigation established wrongdoing by him or other judges, they should face the appropriate action.