The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party has directed its parliamentary wing to take decisive action through Parliament to address alleged misconduct in the judiciary, raising questions about when and how the process will move forward. The issue is also being closely watched within the legal fraternity.

RSP leaders say the decisive parliamentary action being considered is an impeachment motion against justices facing controversy. But the party has yet to settle on how to proceed. Party chair Rabi Lamichhane has been holding consultations on possible action against the judiciary.

Law Minister Sobita Gautam, who is also an RSP vice-chair, said the party secretariat had decided to move ahead through the parliamentary party after consultations with all concerned sides.

“We have consulted lawmakers with legal expertise, including myself, and discussed the matter at the party secretariat. The chair has also been seeking advice from legal experts and figures who wish the party well,” she said. “Other party leaders have weighed in as well. All these discussions have led to the conclusion that serious problems within the judiciary can no longer be ignored.”

Gautam said longstanding problems within the judiciary had now come to the surface. “There have even been instances of justices reaching out to people known as court fixers. This has reinforced the need for reform within the judiciary,” she told Kantipur.

Gautam said the party had yet to decide whether to seek a special parliamentary session or pursue the matter during the next regular session. With the Tihar break just a week away, the timing and practical arrangements for resuming parliamentary business would also need to be considered. “We are unlikely to need a special parliamentary session for this. The process will probably move forward during the regular session,” she said.

Calls for judicial reform intensified after details emerged on Thursday that Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal had exchanged WhatsApp messages with Inam Sapkota, who is alleged to act as a fixer in court cases, and met him at a hotel. Phuyal has acknowledged meeting Sapkota.

A document detailing Sapkota’s financial dealings, also made public on Thursday, mentioned the name of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma. Sharma, however, has denied knowing or having any contact with Sapkota.

Lamichhane discussed the issue on Friday with Gautam and lawmakers with legal expertise. Following the discussions, which favoured resolving the matter through constitutional and legal channels, he convened a meeting of the party secretariat on Saturday. The meeting decided to take up judicial irregularities in Parliament and directed the party’s parliamentary wing to initiate the process.

Ganesh Parajuli, a secretariat member and deputy leader of the RSP parliamentary party, said the party would now proceed in accordance with the Constitution, existing laws and parliamentary practices. “We will take the process forward, summoning Parliament at short notice if necessary. This is not about targeting any individual but addressing problems within the judiciary through constitutional and legal means,” he said.

How the impeachment process works?

Article 101(2) of the Constitution allows impeachment proceedings against the chief justice and Supreme Court justices. An impeachment motion must be endorsed by at least two-thirds of the total number of members of the House of Representatives for the concerned office-holder to be removed.

The process begins in the House of Representatives. Under Rule 164 of the House of Representatives Regulations, 2026, anyone seeking to file an impeachment motion against the chief justice or a Supreme Court justice must submit a notice to the general secretary of Parliament or, in their absence, the secretary, stating the grounds and reasons for the proposed motion.

If Parliament is not in session, the motion must be accompanied by a demand to summon a session within 15 days. Once received, the motion is submitted to the Speaker.

The regulations stipulate that if a motion is registered while the House is in session, the Speaker must set a date and time for discussion within 15 days of its registration. If the House is not in session and a meeting is subsequently convened, the discussion must be scheduled for the first sitting of that session.

As the House is currently not in session, filing an impeachment motion immediately would also require Parliament to be convened. Once the session is called and the motion registered, the Speaker will determine when it is to be discussed. Following the discussion, the motion will be referred to the Impeachment Recommendation Committee.

The Constitution also provides for a mechanism through which an impeachment process can be initiated without the motion being filed by one-fourth of the House members.

Article 101(5) states that at least three members of the House can certify and submit information, evidence or a complaint alleging that an officeholder liable for impeachment has seriously violated the Constitution, lacks the required competence, engaged in misconduct, failed to discharge official duties honestly or seriously breached the code of conduct.

If the Impeachment Recommendation Committee finds the complaint admissible, it can investigate the matter under federal law and recommend that the House initiate impeachment proceedings.

Under Article 101(3), the House must have an 11-member Impeachment Recommendation Committee to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for an impeachment motion and make recommendations.

Rule 165 of the House regulations stipulates that the Speaker must propose the formation of the 11-member committee after consulting the Business Advisory Committee. The committee members elect a chairperson from among themselves.

The committee is required to begin its work immediately and give the accused office-holder seven days to submit a defence. Whether or not the accused responds, the committee must submit a report to the House along with its recommendations.

“The Impeachment Recommendation Committee must submit its report, along with its recommendations, within a maximum of three months from the date it begins its proceedings,” the regulations state.

The report must be distributed to all lawmakers. Under Rule 168, the Speaker then sets a date and time for the House to consider it. The committee chair or a member can propose that the report be taken up for consideration, after which the House holds a discussion.

Any member can also propose that the report be sent back to the committee for further investigation. If the proposal is endorsed by a majority, the committee must reconsider the matter and submit a revised report to the House within seven days.

The report must then be presented by the committee chair or, in their absence, another member. Lawmakers can also propose amendments, which will be discussed in the House before a vote is taken.

“The House shall decide on the impeachment motion through a division of votes, with members signing against their names,” the regulations state.

An impeachment motion must secure the support of at least two-thirds of the House's total membership, or 184 of its 275 members, to remove the concerned office-holder. Once the motion is passed, the general secretary or, in their absence, the secretary, must inform the President, the Council of Ministers and the concerned office-holder of the House's decision.

The Constitution also makes clear that removal through impeachment does not prevent legal action against the individual for any offence committed while in office. A person removed through impeachment is not entitled to any benefits attached to the post and cannot be appointed or nominated to any public office in the future.

The RSP currently has 182 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives. Its Speaker, DP Aryal, who was elected on the party's ticket, cannot participate in the vote on an impeachment motion. This leaves the ruling party with 181 lawmakers eligible to vote.

If independent lawmaker Mahabir Pun, who is also a minister, supports the RSP's proposal, the party's backing would rise to 182 votes, still two short of the 184 required to pass an impeachment motion.