Less than 24 hours after its regular meeting on Tuesday, the Cabinet convened again on Wednesday and decided to remove Nepal Police Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki from his position. In an unusual twist, the government simultaneously appointed him the prime minister’s special security adviser, despite citing dissatisfaction with his performance as police chief.

The decision has raised questions about the government’s approach to the police force, particularly its willingness to change the leadership of a key law enforcement institution to suit its political preferences.

Karki was replaced by Manoj KC, who ranked third in the police hierarchy. Breaking with the tradition of having the home secretary confer the insignia of the police chief, Home Minister Sudan Gurung personally pinned the rank insignia on KC on Wednesday evening.

“Nepal Police is not anyone’s private guard. It is an institution older than the civil service. Instead of strengthening it, changing its leadership to bring in someone of its choice undermines the institution’s credibility and morale,” said Umesh Mainali, a former home secretary. “The agency responsible for investigating and preventing crime and enforcing the law should have been allowed to operate with high morale. That has not happened. This decision is unfortunate.”

The latest dispute between Karki and the prime minister’s secretariat centred on fixer Inam Sapkota, who is in police custody on charges related to money laundering and banking offences. Prime Minister Shah had wanted Karki removed as early as last Thursday, primarily over what the government suspected were links between the police chief and Sapkota.

But the controversy took a new turn when details of conversations between Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and Sapkota became public on the very day Karki was expected to be removed. Further information relating to Sapkota and people allegedly connected to him subsequently emerged.

The Cabinet met on Tuesday but did not discuss or take any decision on Karki’s removal. Meanwhile, police detained journalists and questioned them over reports about conversations between Sapkota and the judge, as well as stories suggesting that the government was preparing to replace the inspector general.

Education Minister Sasmit Pokharel said police had summoned journalists to the Cyber Bureau for questioning after “misleading information about Karki’s impending removal circulated in the media”. Police said the action followed concerns raised by the Prime Minister’s Office, while Shah’s secretariat denied that the prime minister had taken any interest in the matter.

The relationship between Karki and the prime minister’s secretariat deteriorated further after reports emerged that Kumar (Ben) Byanjankar, Shah’s chief adviser, had kept Sapkota’s mobile phone for two days immediately after the fixer was taken into police custody.

“The government became further displeased after details emerged about the prime minister’s chief adviser keeping Sapkota’s phone for two days,” said a government official familiar with the developments. “The Prime Minister’s Office and the police had come face to face over the detention of journalists. After information about the adviser’s conduct during the investigation came out, an emergency Cabinet meeting was held on Wednesday and Karki was removed.”

Karki’s dismissal thus comes amid a widening controversy over the police investigation into Sapkota and allegations of political interference in the force’s operations. The timing and circumstances of the decision have raised questions about how far the police leadership is expected to accommodate the political interests of those in power.

Shah had reportedly raised the proposal to remove Karki during a meeting with Rabi Lamichhane, chair of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party. But the party chief did not clearly endorse the proposal, according to a leader familiar with the discussion.

A retired Nepal Police inspector general said that if Karki had committed any misconduct, the authorities could have taken disciplinary or legal action.

“If he had violated the rules, the relevant authorities could have initiated disciplinary proceedings or filed a case against him,” the former police chief said, asking not to be named for security reasons. “But transferring him without even seeking an explanation suggests that the government had no reason other than wanting to install someone of its choice.”

There is a precedent for such a dispute. In April 1997, the government of then prime minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand transferred sitting police chief Achyut Krishna Kharel to the National Investigation Department and appointed Dhruba Bahadur Pradhan in his place. The move was pushed by then home minister Bamdev Gautam.

Kharel challenged the government’s decision at the Supreme Court, although the case remained pending for a considerable period. After the Chand government fell and Surya Bahadur Thapa became prime minister with the support of the Nepali Congress, Kharel was reinstated as police chief.

In its subsequent ruling on Kharel’s petition, the Supreme Court held that arbitrarily removing an inspector general was contrary to the rule of law.

“If the police administration becomes dependent on political favour, the impartiality and sense of duty of the police service will deteriorate, undermining internal peace and security in the country,” the court said.

Senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai, who represented Kharel before the Supreme Court, said the legal framework governing the appointment and removal of police chiefs had not changed substantially since then.

“The law governing the appointment and removal of the police chief was not fundamentally different then from what it is today. The government cannot remove an incumbent at will. It needs objective grounds and reasons, and the person concerned must be given an opportunity to be heard,” Bhattarai said. “The same principles apply today. Given that the facts and legal provisions are of a similar nature, it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to deviate from that precedent.”

The government, however, appears to have proceeded without adequately considering the precedent. It has yet to provide a clear explanation for Karki’s removal.

Pokharel, who is also the government spokesperson, did not address the reported dissatisfaction with Karki. Instead, he announced the creation of a special security adviser position at the Prime Minister’s Office.

“To strengthen the country’s peace and security situation under the prevailing circumstances, a position at the rank of inspector general of police has been created at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers to provide the prime minister with necessary security advice, recommendations, and consultation,” Pokharel said. “Inspector General of Police Dan Bahadur Karki has been assigned to this position.”

Pokharel said Karki’s removal was based on recommendations from the ruling party. But RSP spokesperson Jagadish Kharel denied that the party had instructed the government to remove or retain any particular individual.

“The party has not issued any directive on whom to remove or appoint. We have not asked for the inspector general to be removed,” he said.

The RSP had sought an explanation from the government over the detention and questioning of journalists and called for an investigation and action against those responsible. The government has said its decision was based on the party’s position on the matter.

However, several officials who spoke to Kantipur said the immediate trigger for Karki’s removal was the leak of information about Sapkota’s alleged link to the prime minister’s political adviser, Ben.

“Karki was accused of leaking unnecessary information involving the prime minister’s adviser. The Prime Minister’s Office had also received reports that other information was being leaked,” said a source close to the prime minister’s secretariat. “Some time ago, Karki had personally met the prime minister and raised questions about Kumar Ben. Details of that conversation subsequently began appearing in the media, and that led to this decision.”

The source said Karki had sought a private meeting with Shah while the investigation into Sapkota was under way and shared information with the prime minister.

Another reason for Karki’s removal, according to officials close to the prime minister’s secretariat, was his reluctance to act immediately on instructions from the Prime Minister’s Office.

“There were instances when orders were issued to arrest certain individuals immediately, but he would raise legal questions and find reasons to delay action. He did not cooperate with the government’s good-governance agenda,” an official said. “He would say that something could not be done under the law. We told him to identify which laws needed to be amended and bring them to us, and we would do it. But even that did not receive a response.”

A senior officer at the Nepal Police headquarters, however, said some of the instructions coming from the Prime Minister’s Office were legally untenable and could not simply be carried out.

“There were instructions to arrest former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana immediately. How could you just pick up someone of that stature without any legal grounds?” the officer asked. “Inam Sapkota has now been arrested, and some information has emerged from his statement. But at that time, there was no basis for such action.”

The officer said Karki had repeatedly reminded officials of the need to follow due process when instructions were issued to detain other individuals. Even before journalist Kishor Shrestha was arrested on August 12, Karki had insisted on following the due procedure.

The allegations against Karki were not limited to his handling of instructions from the Prime Minister’s Office. Officials at the PM’s secretariat also questioned his own contacts with Sapkota.

The 30-year-old fixer, who hails from Jhapa, was accused of working with former chief justice Rana to secure the release of controversial businessman Deepak Bhatta, who is in prison. After Bhatta filed a petition at the Supreme Court, the government directed police to bring Rana in for questioning and launch an investigation. Police subsequently received information that Sapkota was preparing to travel to New Delhi. He was arrested on Karki’s instructions.

An examination of Sapkota’s mobile phone reportedly revealed that he had also been in contact with Karki. In one message, Sapkota said he was in the United States and asked Karki to let him know if he needed anything from there. Karki replied, “Sure, sir”. Their communications also indicated that the two had met once.

An officer close to Karki said the meeting had taken place after an approach was made on behalf of a doctor at the US Embassy in Kathmandu, who reportedly had a negative impression of him.

“Whoever becomes inspector general, colleagues within the organisation start plotting to get him removed. There is little cooperation. When I was told that a powerful person had a negative impression of me, I agreed to meet him once,” the officer said. “It was an ordinary meeting. We had no further contact, and there was nothing improper about our relationship.”

Karki himself met journalists covering security affairs on Monday and denied having any improper association with Sapkota.

“Other colleagues had met him several times. Even when I met him, I spoke to him in English because I wanted to establish whether he was actually a doctor or someone from another country,” Karki reportedly told the journalists. He said he discovered that Sapkota was not a doctor only after his arrest.

As rumours spread that Karki was about to be removed over the alleged connection, he convened a meeting of the Police Policy Coordination Committee (PCC), attended by senior police officials, on October 29.

At the meeting, Karki accused officers within the organisation of conspiring to replace him.

“Whoever wants to become the next inspector general should settle the matter and come to me. I will submit my resignation myself. But do not run a campaign against the organisation,” a deputy inspector general quoted Karki as saying.

Karki’s removal also revived questions about the government's preference for Manoj KC, who was third on the seniority list when Karki was appointed.

Although Karki had been appointed by the government led by Sushila Karki, Prime Minister Shah and leaders close to him had favoured making Additional Inspector General KC the police chief from the outset.

A former member of Shah’s team at the Kathmandu Metropolitan City said the preference for KC dated back to the investigation into the fake Bhutanese refugee scam, when police were preparing to arrest Nepali Congress leader Arzu Rana Deuba.

“At the time, the government itself was brought down when the police were preparing to arrest Arzu Rana Deuba in the fake Bhutanese refugee case. The subsequent government tried to remove KC from his responsibilities and block his promotion. Information about this reached the prime minister’s secretariat,” the former team member said. “After that, there was a view that KC should be made inspector general.”

The source said the issue had also been raised with Om Prakash Aryal, home minister in the government led by then prime minister Sushila Karki. However, she eventually appointed Dan Bahadur Karki, who was first in the seniority list, reportedly following advice that bypassing the senior-most officer could create problems. At the time, Rajan Adhikari ranked second and Manoj KC third.

With 17 months remaining in his tenure, Karki is preparing to challenge the government’s decision at the Supreme Court. The dispute is expected to test the extent of the government’s authority to remove a serving police chief midway through his term and the legal restrictions on exercising that power.

The court’s previous rulings on the removal of Kharel and former Nepal Electricity Authority executive director Hitendra Dev Shakya are likely to be relevant.

Kharel’s case bears striking similarities to Karki’s. When Kharel challenged his removal, Ganesh Raj Sharma and Kusum Shrestha represented the government, while senior advocates Balaram KC and Krishna Prasad Bhandari, along with advocates Sapana Pradhan Malla and Tikaram Bhattarai, represented Kharel.

The Supreme Court laid down three key principles, focusing primarily on the need for the government to exercise its discretion within the bounds of law and reason when removing an incumbent from office.

“A decision to remove a person who remains legally qualified to continue in a position, merely on general grounds such as the need to promote another individual, cannot be considered a reasonable exercise of discretion or a decision based on law,” the ruling stated. “If the police administration depends on political favour, the impartiality and sense of duty of the police service will deteriorate, undermining internal peace and security. Such a practice could eventually lead to a grave situation.”

The Supreme Court has established a similar precedent in the case of Shakya.

The government had transferred Shakya, then-executive director of the Nepal Electricity Authority, to the position of energy expert member at the Water and Energy Commission and appointed Manoj Silwal in his place.

Shakya challenged the decision, and a joint bench of justices Nahakul Subedi and Shrikant Paudel overturned the Cabinet’s decision, ordering the government to allow him to continue as the authority’s executive director.

The court noted that although Shakya had been appointed to another position, the practical effect was that he had been prevented from completing the tenure he was legally entitled to serve as head of the authority.

It also found that the government had failed to follow the required procedures for removing him and that the departmental minister’s proposal appeared biased and retaliatory. 0

 The question now is whether the Supreme Court will apply similar principles to the government’s decision to remove Karki.