On September 2, a relatively unknown figure, Inam Sapkota, presented himself as a representative of the prime minister and sent a message to Supreme Court Justice Hari Phuyal, who was sitting on the bench at the time, suggesting how the court should rule in a case before it.

Sapkota told Phuyal that the prime minister wanted Rohit Gupta, a former director of Himalayan Reinsurance who was facing a money-laundering case at the Special Court, to remain in custody. He asked the justice to act accordingly.

That day, two petitions concerning Gupta were before a bench comprising justices Phuyal and Shreekanta Paudel. One had been filed by Gupta’s wife, Sakshi Bansal Gupta, seeking his release through a habeas corpus order. The other was Gupta’s own petition challenging the Special Court’s order remanding him in custody.

The two justices dismissed the habeas corpus petition, ruling that Gupta’s detention was not unlawful. However, in response to his separate petition, they ordered his release on bail of Rs20 million, saying there were no sufficient grounds to keep him in custody.

According to details made public, Sapkota sent his message after Phuyal had already taken his seat on the bench. Phuyal replied that evening, explaining the reasons behind the decision to release Gupta on bail. He also proposed meeting Sapkota at Hotel Himalaya at 7pm the following evening.

After these details became public, Phuyal told journalists on Thursday that he had met Sapkota collectively with three other justices. He maintained that he had not compromised his financial, moral, or professional integrity in any way. He also said Sapkota was arrested after the justices themselves informed the Prime Minister’s Office about him.

But as the controversy unfolded, it moved well beyond Phuyal and Sapkota. It highlights questions about institutional weaknesses within the judiciary, judicial conduct, declining public confidence in the courts and the relationship between political power and the judiciary.

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari says Nepal’s public institutions, not just its courts, are facing a continuing decline.

“When matters like this surface, the public needs to trust that our system functions through established channels. Instead, we’ve reached a point where those rules can no longer be applied fairly,” he said. “Our institutions have already lost that public trust. The crisis isn’t a lack of procedures—it’s the compromised integrity of the people tasked with enforcing them.”

Another detail made public on Thursday was a list provided by Sapkota of people for whom money was to be deposited. The list reportedly included ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokhrel, then-Additional Inspector General of the Armed Police Force Banshiraj Dahal, and Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma. Sharma later issued a statement denying any involvement in the transactions and saying that he had no acquaintance with Sapkota.

The information made public so far does not establish wrongdoing by Sharma, Phuyal, or the three other justices who reportedly met Sapkota. But neither can the seriousness of the allegations be played down. An impartial investigation must establish the facts, ensure accountability if wrongdoing is proven, and protect the reputations of those cleared of the allegations as well as the integrity of the judiciary.

Whether Sapkota’s claimed political connections were genuine or merely a strategy to exert influence, whether the financial details made public are accurate, and whether any laws or judicial codes of conduct were violated by the justices are matters that must be established through an impartial investigation.

Even before those questions are resolved, however, the controversy raises fundamental concerns: How do people claiming political connections gain access to judges? How do they communicate with justices about cases pending before the court? And why are there no effective institutional mechanisms to prevent such interactions?

The constitution envisages the judiciary as an independent and impartial institution. Judges are expected to make decisions free from pressure or influence from the executive, legislature, political parties, business groups or any other centres of power. Judicial independence does not simply mean that judges must formally refuse to follow instructions from the prime minister. It also requires safeguards against informal pressure and influence from political and other powerful actors.

This is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the present controversy. A person claims to represent the prime minister, establishes contact with judges, invokes the threat of impeachment, offers assurances of protection against it and then attempts to influence a pending case by invoking the prime minister’s interest in its outcome.

These developments are no longer merely questions of individual conduct. They have raised concerns about the institutional boundaries of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. Constitutional expert Adhikari sees this as a failure of leadership at the level of the prime minister.

“The prime minister is said to have a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption,” Adhikari said. “But the claim that he does not engage in corruption does not excuse incompetence. When he shuts himself away instead of believing in transparent relationships and communication between state institutions, people like Sapkota get involved in such games.”

Another important question raised by the controversy is why Supreme Court justices sought to establish contact with the political leadership in the first place, and why they chose informal channels to do so.

Justice Phuyal has said that, amid talk of possible impeachment proceedings against them at the time, they met someone believed to have direct links with the prime minister as a possible intermediary. He has maintained that he was not alone in doing so. If that was indeed the case, it raises questions about the judiciary’s institutional confidence and autonomy.

How did judges come to feel that they needed assurances of political protection in the first place? And what does it mean for the independence of Parliament and the courts when judges seek to navigate a constitutional process such as impeachment through assurances or mediation from politically connected individuals?

According to Adhikari, even when a judge is threatened with impeachment, he or she should be able to say: “I have done nothing wrong. I will stand before the elected representatives with integrity.”

He acknowledged, however, that the conditions needed to give judges such confidence were absent.

“Judges, from the district courts to the Supreme Court, feel insecure these days. They are not supposed to seek protection from the army, the police or the prime minister’s secretariat,” he said. “The institution responsible for protecting them is Parliament. But we have seen how Parliament acted out of a sense of retaliation in the cases of Sushila Karki and Cholendra Shumsher Rana. Having also felt insecure before Parliament, judges have started looking for protection on their own.”

Purnaman Shakya, another constitutional expert, said the controversy showed that Supreme Court justices were afraid of impeachment and operating in a climate of fear.

“They have apparently reached a point where they run to meet intermediaries to escape impeachment,” he said. “The government, the prime minister and the ruling party need to assure them that they can perform their duties without fear and that there is no such threat. The government must provide that reassurance.”

Shakya, however, said judges had no reason to be afraid of either the government or Parliament.

“A judge who is intimidated cannot fulfil the primary responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and protecting citizens from abuses of state power. In such circumstances, justice cannot be served,” he said.

Assessing judicial conduct requires more than establishing whether a judge received direct financial benefits in exchange for a ruling or whether improper political or other interference was proven. It is equally important to examine whether judges behaved in ways that upheld the dignity of their office, impartiality, and public confidence.

Exchanging private messages with someone claiming to represent the political leadership about a sub judice case, failing to follow a clear formal procedure when faced with an attempt to influence the proceedings, and subsequently meeting that person at a private venue all raise serious questions about judicial conduct.

Even if a judge’s claim that there was no improper intention is accepted, such behaviour inevitably creates public suspicion. A court’s credibility is weakened when a judge’s conduct suggests the possibility of external influence, even if the judge ultimately delivers an impartial ruling. Judicial standards of conduct must therefore extend beyond the minimum legal threshold required to establish corruption.

The fact that the chief justice himself has been named in the details concerning financial transactions makes the matter even more serious. Although Sharma has denied the allegations, his claims also need to be independently examined.

There is no credible and independent mechanism for investigating serious allegations against Supreme Court justices. The Constitution provides for impeachment, but there is a lack of clear institutional procedures for establishing facts, preserving evidence, and ensuring a fair hearing before the process reaches impeachment, which is intended as a measure of last resort.

Just as the judiciary needs protection from political connections, informal power networks, and the influence of intermediaries, it also needs a stronger culture of transparency and accountability within its own ranks.

The judiciary is not an institution that should seek protection from political power. It is supposed to ensure that even those who wield political authority remain within the limits of the Constitution and the law. Its independence can be secured only when judges are institutionally protected not just from access by intermediaries, but also from the lure of political patronage and the possibility of informal influence.

There has been no institutional response from the judiciary to the controversy as a whole. Sharma and Phuyal have issued statements in their individual capacities. The Nepal Bar Association has called for an impartial, credible and transparent investigation into the details made public.

The Supreme Court’s full-court meeting, called on Friday to discuss contemporary issues, ended without taking any concrete decision.