Inam Sapkota, who was arrested on allegations of acting as a middleman, is accused of attempting to influence Supreme Court judges by invoking the names of senior officials and messaging a justice about a pending case, according to reports published from Kathmandu on October 29. The reports say Sapkota referred to Prime Minister Balen Shah and Chief Justice Dr Manoj Sharma while seeking to demonstrate his influence, and that he sent a message to Justice Hari concerning a case before the court.
The allegations raise questions about whether Sapkota used claims of political connections to approach members of the judiciary. However, the information reported so far describes allegations and does not establish that any judge changed a decision or acted on his approach. Sapkota’s arrest, the reported message and the claimed references to senior officials are separate elements of the account and should not be treated as proof of judicial interference.
What the reports say
According to Onlinekhabar, Sapkota’s message mentioned both the chief justice and the prime minister. The report links the communication to an attempt to influence a Supreme Court case that was still pending. It identifies Justice Hari as the recipient of the message, but the available summary does not provide details of the case or explain what specific outcome Sapkota allegedly sought.
A separate report by Ratopati describes Sapkota as boasting about access to the American Embassy and what it called a “power center” when approaching judges. The report also says that, after becoming suspicious, someone reported the matter to police and was told to be careful. The published account, as reflected in the available information, does not provide further detail about the person who made the report or what steps police took in response.
Together, the reports portray Sapkota as seeking to project influence through claimed links to powerful figures and institutions. They do not, on the information available, establish that those named officials had any involvement in his actions. Nor do they show that the officials knew their names were being invoked. The references are presented as part of Sapkota’s alleged effort to demonstrate clout, not as evidence that the named figures directed or supported him.
Alleged approach to the court
The central allegation is that Sapkota attempted to bring that claimed influence to bear on a matter before the Supreme Court. Messaging a judge about a pending case can raise concerns about pressure on the judicial process, but the reports do not say whether Justice Hari replied, whether the message was forwarded to any authority, or whether the case was affected. Those unanswered points are important in distinguishing an alleged attempt to exert influence from evidence that the court’s work was changed as a result.
Sapkota had already been arrested on allegations of acting as a middleman, according to the reports. The available information does not specify the precise charge connected to that arrest, when it took place, or whether the alleged contact with judges forms part of the same investigation. It also does not set out whether prosecutors have filed a case or whether a court has made findings against him. The allegations therefore remain allegations, and the reports should not be read as a determination of guilt.
Questions still unresolved
The reports published on October 29 bring together claims about Sapkota’s alleged middleman role, his references to senior officials and his communication with a Supreme Court justice. But they leave several matters unclear, including the details of the pending case, the full contents and context of the message, and the response, if any, from the judge or police. No conclusion about the effect on the court case can be drawn from the information provided.
The account also does not establish whether Sapkota had any actual connection to the officials or institutions he is said to have mentioned. For now, the reported conduct centers on his alleged use of those names and claims of access to convey influence. Any assessment of responsibility will depend on evidence and the findings of the relevant legal process, rather than on the allegations alone.
