The interim government led by former chief justice Sushila Karki has faced repeated setbacks from the Supreme Court over its legally questionable decisions, the latest seeing the court reinstate Hitentra Dev Shakya as the National Electricity Authority’s managing director.

Not only has the top court overturned the Karki government’s decision, but some rulings have also reminded Karki and her ministers of the limits of their authority. In annulling the government’s decision to transfer Shakya as an energy expert at the Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, a division of justices Nahakul Subedi and Shreekanta Paudel said the transfer was biased and retaliatory. “Such arbitrary decisions and actions, evident from the case files, cannot stand under the rule of law and justice,” reads the ruling.

On September 21, the Cabinet appointed Manoj Silwal, a former NEA deputy executive director, as managing director of the state-run power utility, just five months after Shakya took charge. Earlier, on March 24, the KP Sharma Oli-led Cabinet had removed Kulman Ghising from the post of managing director and appointed Shakya in his place. After becoming energy minister following September’s Gen Z movement, Ghising retaliated by transferring Shakya to a newly created position, a move that the court objected to.

This is the fourth instance in two months during which the court has overturned the decisions of the Karki government, which is composed of lawyers, retired justices and bureaucrats. The judiciary’s first intervention came within a month of Karki taking the helm as executive head. In a blanket decision citing austerity measures, the government had decided to terminate the contracts of all personal assistants of all lawmakers and political office-holders.

A group of such officials from the National Inclusion Commission challenged the decision in the Supreme Court. The decision was overturned. This was followed by the intervention in the decision to recall ambassadors from 11 foreign missions.

The Supreme Court issued an order against the government’s decision to recall 11 Nepali ambassadors from various countries, halting the implementation of the decision by the Karki administration.

The top court concluded that the decision could affect Nepal’s relations with host countries and questioned the necessity and justification for the recall. A division bench also reminded the Karki-government that it was an election government with limited jurisdiction. Following the ouster of the Oli government amid a nationwide anticorruption movement in September, President Ramchandra Paudel appointed Karki as prime minister, dissolved parliament, and tasked her with holding snap parliamentary elections on March 5.

“When it comes to ambassadors' appointments, the court moved a step ahead, sending a message that the government, lacking electoral support, cannot make decisions that might destabilise diplomatic relationships,” said senior advocate Bipin Adhikari, a professor at Kathmandu University School of Law. “But I believe the appointments of ambassadors were political, and the executive has the authority to change its envoys if it is not comfortable with them.”

Ignoring repeated interventions, the Karki administration continued to take decisions with long-term effect, only to face rebukes.

The court had also reverted the government’s decision to scrap the Land Problem Settlement Commission and its subordinate offices in all districts.

Constitutional experts say while they do not view the court’s orders as an attempt to confine it to holding elections, they clearly serve as a reminder of the government’s limitations.

“The top court has said that no decision beyond the legal ambit can be taken under any pretext. The court verdicts are grounded. It has given a message that it will not compromise on legality,” said Adhikari. “After so many setbacks, the government should be very careful in taking decisions with long-term implications.”