Rana’s Detention Puts Supreme Court Leadership Under Scrutiny

Kathmandu, Nepal: The late-night removal of former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana from his residence has triggered serious questions over the way state agencies treated a former head of the judiciary and has also exposed growing concerns within the Supreme Court over its leadership and functioning.

Rana was taken from his residence in Maharajgunj after midnight on Sunday and taken to the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office in Teku. He was released to his family several hours later.

Police said Rana was taken to Teku for security reasons after receiving information about a possible threat to his safety. Officials said he was not being investigated or detained in connection with any criminal case. However, authorities have not publicly disclosed the nature of the alleged threat, where the information came from, or why it was considered necessary to take Rana from his residence to a police office.

The incident prompted the Supreme Court to convene a full court meeting on Monday. The meeting discussed the circumstances surrounding Rana’s removal as well as broader concerns about the functioning and administration of the judiciary.

In a statement issued after the meeting, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern that a former chief justice had been taken from his residence at midnight and kept at the Teku office for around 10 hours before being returned to his family. The court said personal liberty could be restricted only in accordance with established legal procedures and that actions taken without due process could not be accepted in a democratic system.

The court also stressed that former chief justices, former judges, serving judges and judicial employees are part of the independent judiciary and should be treated appropriately by state agencies.

During the full court meeting, judges also raised concerns about the leadership of Chief Justice Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma, including judicial appointments, the functioning of the Special Court, the Constitutional Bench and complaints about the increasing influence of intermediaries in the judiciary.

Questions were also raised over the recent appointment of judges to the High Courts while vacancies remain at the Supreme Court. The issue has become a matter of debate within the legal community, with some questioning whether the order of appointments adequately addressed the Supreme Court’s growing workload and case backlog.

The functioning of the Special Court was another issue discussed by the judges. The court handles sensitive cases involving corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Some judges reportedly expressed concern over its administration and the need to maintain public confidence in the institution. Such concerns, however, do not by themselves establish misconduct or corruption.

The Constitutional Bench also came under discussion. The Chief Justice has the constitutional authority to lead the bench and designate four other justices. The concerns raised by judges relate mainly to the manner in which members are selected and cases are assigned, including questions about transparency, seniority and predictability.

Sharma’s own appointment as Chief Justice had previously attracted debate because he was not the most senior justice at the time. Legal professionals questioned the departure from the established practice of seniority, although that criticism does not by itself establish that his appointment was unlawful.

The full court meeting also reportedly included sharp exchanges over the growing complaints surrounding the judiciary and the role of intermediaries in judicial administration. One judge was reported to have warned Sharma that he could face a situation similar to that of former Chief Justice Rana if concerns about the judiciary’s administration were not addressed. The remark was part of the reported discussion and does not represent a formal finding of the Supreme Court.

Rana himself has remained a controversial figure within Nepal’s judiciary. He was suspended in 2022 after 98 lawmakers registered an impeachment motion against him. The motion contained a number of allegations concerning his conduct and administration of the judiciary, but the parliamentary impeachment process was never completed.

After the end of the parliamentary term, a Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Sharma later ruled on the legal status of the impeachment process, clearing the way for Rana to receive his pension and other benefits. There is no established evidence that this ruling was connected to the police action against Rana on Sunday.

The incident has also drawn attention to the relationship between the judiciary and security agencies. Nepal Police Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki later visited the Supreme Court and met Chief Justice Sharma. The meeting reportedly lasted around 40 minutes. Officials said security issues concerning judges and judicial personnel, along with other current matters, were discussed. There has been no official confirmation that the meeting was specifically about Rana.

Former Chief Justice Om Prakash Mishra has questioned why, if Rana faced a genuine security threat, additional protection could not have been provided at his residence rather than taking him to a police office.

The central issue now is not only why Rana was taken to Teku, but also whether the authorities followed the appropriate legal and security procedures in doing so. At the same time, the concerns raised by judges about judicial appointments, the Constitutional Bench, the Special Court and the administration of the Supreme Court point to wider questions about transparency and institutional decision-making.

The circumstances surrounding Rana’s removal require a clear explanation from the authorities. Equally, the concerns raised within the Supreme Court need to be addressed through established procedures and verifiable facts rather than speculation or personal confrontation.