The Supreme Court has called on the relevant authorities to investigate allegations concerning justices whose contacts with alleged judicial fixer Inam Sapkota have come under scrutiny, effectively shifting responsibility for addressing the controversy to Parliament.

At a full court meeting on Monday, the justices decided against forming an internal investigation committee to examine a controversy involving their own colleagues. Instead, they called for an impartial investigation by an institution authorised under the Constitution and the law.

The decision has brought Parliament into focus as the institution expected to take the matter forward. In other words, the next action to be taken is the impeachment itself.

The full court made its position public two days after the secretariat of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) instructed its parliamentary party to initiate impeachment proceedings against judges linked to the controversy. At its meeting on Saturday, the party concluded that questions surrounding the judiciary should be addressed through parliamentary procedures and directed its parliamentary party to pursue the process. Party chairman Rabi Lamichhane had also discussed the matter with the law minister and lawmakers with legal backgrounds.

While the ruling party is pushing its lawmakers to pursue impeachment, the Supreme Court’s full court has asked the relevant authorities to conduct an impartial investigation, effectively placing the next move in Parliament’s hands.

A statement issued by Supreme Court spokesperson and Registrar Ashok Kumar Chhetri, after Monday’s meeting, said: “We urge the relevant authorities to investigate matters that have been publicly reported, conduct an independent and impartial inquiry in accordance with the Constitution and prevailing laws, and make their findings public as soon as possible.”

Article 101 of the Constitution provides for the impeachment of the chief justice and Supreme Court justices. Once an impeachment motion is registered in the House of Representatives, the parliamentary process for investigation and recommendations can begin.

The full court’s statement did not explicitly say that this process should be initiated or recommend impeachment. However, constitutional experts say the reference to the “relevant authorities” points to Parliament, as the Constitution does not authorise any other institution to investigate the Chief Justice or Supreme Court justices.

Senior advocate Purnaman Shakya said the Judicial Council or the Supreme Court itself could have investigated the allegations but they appeared unwilling to do so.

“The language of the full court’s statement suggests that it has accepted that it will not conduct the investigation itself. It appears to have decided against examining the matter internally,” Shakya said. “This now appears to fall within Parliament’s jurisdiction.”

The controversy intensified last Thursday after details emerged of WhatsApp conversations between Justice Hari Phuyal and Sapkota, as well as a meeting involving Phuyal, other justices, and Sapkota at the Hotel Himalaya.

Phuyal himself acknowledged exchanging WhatsApp messages with Sapkota and confirmed that other justices had also met the alleged fixer alongside him. Details of financial transactions linked to Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma surfaced soon afterwards, adding to questions about possible links between members of the judiciary and Sapkota.

The disclosures have raised serious questions about judicial conduct, the independence of the judiciary and the possible influence of intermediaries over the administration of justice.

The issue was also discussed at a full court meeting on Friday. Monday’s meeting subsequently decided that the allegations should be investigated independently and impartially, rather than through an internal inquiry by the Supreme Court.

Former Supreme Court justice Ishwar Khatiwada said it was reasonable for the full court to indicate that matters falling within Parliament’s jurisdiction should be examined by the legislature.

“The full court has said, in simple and measured language, that there should be an investigation and that it must be conducted in accordance with the Constitution. This means Parliament should examine the matter. It will, presumably, exercise due care and consider questions of justice, evidence and law. This is necessary because once questions have been raised, the facts must be established,” Khatiwada said.

Former Supreme Court justice Balaram KC, however, said the statement issued after the full court meeting lacked clarity. Although the court had acknowledged that the investigation must comply with the Constitution and the law, it had not clearly identified who should conduct it, he said.

“The wording appears to point indirectly to Parliament. But it could also be interpreted as referring to the court itself or the government,” KC said.

He argued that the full court could have made its position more explicit by invoking Article 136 of the Constitution, which gives the chief justice responsibility for the administration of justice, while acknowledging that he could not examine allegations involving himself. The court should then have asked Parliament to establish the facts, KC said.

“The full court’s decision remains unclear. It should have said that although Article 136 gives the chief justice authority over the administration of justice, he cannot investigate a matter involving himself. Parliament should therefore establish the facts,” he said. “If that was not the court’s position, it should have made clear that the government and Parliament should not interfere.”

Nevertheless, KC said the decision had opened the way for Parliament to investigate. Political leaders and lawmakers must now decide whether further action is warranted after an impartial inquiry into the allegations against the judges, he said.

The full court’s statement also urged the media to report responsibly on the controversy and pledged the judiciary’s cooperation with investigations conducted under the Constitution and the law.

“We are committed to fulfilling our accountability and extending cooperation, as required by law, in investigations and inquiries conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the law into reports being published and broadcast by the media,” the statement said.

The full court meeting on Monday, a continuation of discussions that began on Friday, was attended by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, senior-most justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and other Supreme Court justices.

During the meeting, Malla said the questions raised by the controversy concerned the administration of justice and the influence of intermediaries in the judiciary. She argued that the allegations should be investigated and the facts made public, but cautioned against declaring anyone guilty or making someone a scapegoat based on speculation.

Chief Justice Sharma and Justice Phuyal reiterated their earlier statements.

Sharma said the reports linking him to the controversy were false and that he had no contact or relationship with anyone named Inam Sapkota.

Phuyal, meanwhile, said he and some other justices had faced pressure from intermediaries seeking to influence the judiciary. He said they had decided to bring the matter into the open despite the possibility of personal consequences.

“He said he had no choice but to make the matter public. Otherwise, fixer Sapkota could have fled,” another justice quoted Phuyal as saying. “He said he was prepared to make any personal sacrifice for exposing intermediaries and people exerting pressure in court cases. But the judiciary should not be dragged into controversy, and he had not compromised his integrity in any way.”

Most justices at the meeting argued that the Supreme Court should not set up its own inquiry.

“We have no precedent of investigating a controversy in which we ourselves are implicated, and neither the Constitution nor the law gives us that authority. Let the institution authorised by the Constitution and the law handle the matter. We should ask it to conduct an impartial and unbiased investigation,” one justice said, quoting the majority opinion.

The meeting also discussed the need to ensure that the inquiry covered all justices implicated in the controversy rather than focusing on one individual.

Justices Balkrishna Dhakal, Nripadhwaj Niraula, Nahakul Subedi, Shreekanta Poudel, and Nityananda Pandey, among others, argued that the investigation must be free from discrimination.

Justices Meghraj Pokharel, Sunil Kumar Pokharel, and Saranga Subedi, among others, also called on the media to exercise greater care when editing and publishing reports concerning the judiciary.

“All the justices are currently under pressure and in an uncomfortable position. This was reflected in the remarks made by most of them,” a justice said. “Since the Supreme Court has not investigated allegations against its own justices in the past, we unanimously agreed to ask the relevant authorities to do so.”

The need for an impartial and unbiased parliamentary investigation and impeachment process was also discussed. The justices argued that public confidence in the judiciary could be maintained only if the inquiry avoided selectively targeting individuals.

“This controversy should never have arisen in the first place. But now that it has, all the justices appear united on resolving it and ensuring that the process moves forward within the constitutional framework,” another justice said. “We will collectively face whatever comes next, but no one should be shielded if the evidence establishes wrongdoing.”