The full court meeting called by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma on Friday discussed four issues arising from the Inam Sapkota controversy: justices’ contacts with the alleged middleman, the dispute over the formation of the Constitutional Bench, alleged financial dealings in which the chief justice’s name was invoked, and possible violations of judicial conduct rules.

The justices also discussed forming an internal investigation committee led by a sitting justice to establish the facts and help the court agree on a common response.

A Supreme Court official said justices had been notified on Thursday about the meeting scheduled for Friday morning. The agenda described it simply as a “discussion on contemporary issues”.

Of the court’s 16 justices, 14 attended. Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Abdul Ajiz Musalman were absent as both were abroad.

The meeting was held before the morning lottery that assigns cases to benches. Justices Hari Prasad Phuyal, Nityananda Pandeya, Meghraj Pokhrel, Mahesh Sharma Poudel, Shreekanta Poudel and Saranga Subedi, among others, spoke.

Phuyal briefed his colleagues on his WhatsApp exchanges with Sapkota and their meeting at the Hotel Himalaya. He said he had received a message purportedly sent on behalf of the prime minister and had agreed to communicate with Sapkota after the latter approached him through a relative.

Phuyal maintained that he had done nothing to compromise judicial propriety or influence the administration of justice. He said he was ready to cooperate with any investigation and provide all relevant details.

He also said that he and other justices had themselves informed the prime minister’s secretariat about Sapkota, arguing that they had no improper intentions in their dealings with him.

Other justices said the controversy could no longer be treated as an internal matter, as the media had already reported details. They urged the Supreme Court to form an investigation committee led by a sitting justice to establish the facts and help the court arrive at a common position based on its findings.

According to one justice who attended the meeting, most speakers, apart from Phuyal, urged Sharma to take the lead in resolving questions surrounding the WhatsApp exchanges, the meeting at the Hotel Himalaya and the formation of the Constitutional Bench.

They also called for an agreement among the justices to resolve the dispute over the Constitutional Bench, saying the matter should not be allowed to escalate into a prolonged public controversy and allegations of a media trial.

“The majority of justices emphasised four main issues: forming an investigation committee to address the questions raised, resolving the Constitutional Bench dispute, responding to allegations involving the chief justice himself, and deciding how to deal with possible violations of the judicial code of conduct in the days ahead,” one justice said.

“Since these questions have already been raised publicly, they need to be addressed as soon as possible. Otherwise, the judiciary will not only suffer reputational damage but also lose public trust.”

Another justice said participants broadly agreed that the Supreme Court itself should initiate an investigation. However, no one clearly explained the legal basis or mechanism for establishing such a committee.

The proposal was to form a committee headed by a sitting justice through a full court decision, with the task of addressing the questions that have emerged, the justice said.

“What Parliament decides to do is its own business, but we must also investigate the matter internally and establish the facts,” one justice said, recounting the discussion.

“If we remain silent at this point, questions initially raised against a few justices will eventually be raised against all of us.”