- The Supreme Court of Nepal ordered a fresh hearing regarding the Nepali Congress special general convention leadership dispute to ensure judicial review.
- The court will reassess the Election Commission’s recognition of Gagan Thapa’s leadership, focusing specifically on the principle of natural justice.
- Sher Bahadur Deuba’s faction challenged the previous ruling, claiming they were denied an adequate opportunity to present their case.
- This review reopens the legal dispute but does not immediately invalidate the current party leadership or previous Election Commission decisions.
Kathmandu: The Supreme Court of Nepal has ordered a fresh hearing in the dispute related to the Nepali Congress’ special general convention, stating that the case requires judicial review from the beginning. The Court ruled that the Election Commission’s decision to recognize the new leadership formed through the special convention must be reconsidered, as questions remain over whether the opposing faction was given an adequate opportunity to present its case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma and Justices Nityananda Pandey and Shreekant Paudel on Thursday granted permission for a review of the previous verdict, stating that the earlier decision needs to be examined in light of established legal precedents related to the principles of natural justice.
The latest order allows the dispute to be reopened for judicial examination. However, it does not immediately invalidate either the Election Commission’s decision or the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling. Instead, it requires the Court to reassess whether due legal procedures were followed while recognizing the new party leadership.
Background of the dispute
The dispute emerged after the Nepali Congress held its special general convention. Following the convention, the faction led by Gagan Thapa submitted an application to the Election Commission requesting an update of the party’s official leadership records.
On February 11, 2026 (29 Magh 2082 B.S.), the Election Commission recognized the decisions of the special general convention and officially approved the new central working committee led by Gagan Thapa.
The decision was challenged by the faction led by former party president Sher Bahadur Deuba, which argued that the process followed by the Election Commission and the recognition of the new leadership required further legal scrutiny.
On April 17, 2026 (4 Baisakh 2083 B.S.), a joint bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission’s decision, allowing the recognition of the leadership elected through the special general convention to remain in effect.
However, a petition was later filed seeking a review of the verdict, arguing that the Court’s decision had not adequately considered whether all affected parties had been provided with a fair opportunity to be heard.
Court highlights principle of natural justice
While granting permission for judicial review, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of natural justice, which requires fairness and impartiality in judicial and administrative decision-making.
The Court observed that whenever a decision affects an individual’s rights or legal interests, the concerned party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present its views before the decision is made.
The bench referred to the precedent established in Bir Bahadur Raut Ahir v. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs, stating that a decision made without providing an opportunity for a hearing cannot receive legal validity.
The precedent established in Bhadra 2068 B.S. (September 2011) states that if a decision affects a person’s rights, providing an opportunity for a hearing before making such a decision is a mandatory requirement. It further recognizes that decisions made without following this principle may not stand in the eyes of law.
The Supreme Court also referred to the precedent established in Ratna Kaji Maharjan v. Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), decided in Asar 2069 B.S. (June/July 2012).
According to this precedent, any judicial or quasi-judicial body must remain impartial and provide every concerned party with a full and fair opportunity to present its arguments. The Court emphasized that the principle of natural justice is an essential component of a fair judicial process and cannot be ignored.
Review based on legal precedents
The Supreme Court stated that the legal principles established in these previous judgments are relevant to the current dispute and require further examination.
The order noted that questions regarding compliance with established legal principles remain unresolved, and therefore, permission for review has been granted.
The Court stated, “As questions regarding compliance with the legal principles established by the aforementioned precedents are involved in this case, permission for review has been granted. The case shall proceed according to law.”
Political and legal implications
The Supreme Court’s latest order has reopened the legal dispute surrounding the Nepali Congress’ special general convention and its leadership structure.
The fresh hearing will examine whether the Election Commission followed proper legal procedures while recognizing the new leadership and whether the previous Supreme Court judgment adequately addressed the concerns related to procedural fairness.
The final outcome of the case could have significant implications for the internal politics of the Nepali Congress. It may also establish further legal guidance regarding the authority of the Election Commission and the application of natural justice principles in disputes involving political parties.
Until the Supreme Court delivers a final decision after the rehearing, the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the special general convention and the recognition of its leadership will remain unresolved.
