The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) has decided to seek a parliamentary resolution to the controversy surrounding Nepal's judiciary, opening discussions on impeaching Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and Justice Hari Phuyal. The decision was taken at a secretariat meeting held on Saturday at the party's central office in Chabahil, where the party concluded that the Judicial Council cannot resolve the dispute and that Parliament itself must now handle it. The party has directed its parliamentary delegation to begin the impeachment process, warning that if the two judges do not resign, an impeachment motion will be registered in Parliament.

A decision made in Chabahil

The secretariat meeting, convened at the RSP's central office in Chabahil, became the setting for a significant decision against the country's top judiciary. Discussions at the Saturday meeting centred on how the controversy surrounding the judiciary should be resolved, and which institution holds the authority to resolve it.

The meeting arrived at a clear conclusion: the Judicial Council cannot resolve the matter. With that channel ruled out, the party determined that the issue must now be handled by Parliament. In practical terms, the meeting produced three outcomes:

  • The party concluded that the Judicial Council cannot resolve the controversy surrounding the judiciary.
  • It decided that Parliament must handle the matter going forward.
  • It directed its parliamentary delegation to begin the impeachment process against Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and Justice Hari Phuyal.

Why the party says Parliament must act

The RSP's position rests on a distinction between the two institutions named in its decision. The Judicial Council is the internal oversight mechanism of the judiciary, the body tasked with matters concerning judges within that framework. Parliament, by contrast, holds the constitutional power of impeachment, the most serious accountability mechanism available against justices of the Supreme Court.

By concluding that the council cannot resolve the matter, the RSP has effectively argued that the existing mechanism has proven inadequate and that the remaining constitutional remedy lies with the legislature. The decision therefore shifts the controversy from an internal judicial process to the floor of Parliament, where it will play out as a political and constitutional question rather than an administrative one.

The move also represents a deliberate escalation by the party. Rather than waiting for the council to act, the RSP has chosen to place responsibility for resolving the controversy squarely in Parliament's hands, and to name the head of the judiciary and a sitting justice of the Supreme Court as the subjects of potential impeachment.

Resignation first, impeachment motion if they refuse

The strategy approved on Saturday follows a clear sequence. The RSP has directed its parliamentary delegation to begin the impeachment process against the two judges. At the same time, the party has left a window open for the judges to step down on their own: if Chief Justice Sharma and Justice Phuyal resign, the need for a motion in Parliament falls away. If they do not resign, the party says an impeachment motion will be registered in Parliament.

Under Article 102 of Nepal's Constitution, an impeachment motion against a judge may be tabled in the House of Representatives with the backing of at least one-third of its members. Once such a motion is registered, the judge stands automatically suspended from office, and removal requires adoption by a two-thirds majority of the full House. The process is rare, procedurally demanding, and carries the gravest consequence available under the constitution for a sitting justice.

The directive to the party's parliamentary delegation indicates that the RSP intends to operate within this constitutional framework rather than outside it. The resignation demand functions as the first step, the impeachment motion as the fallback, and Parliament as the arena in which the dispute would ultimately be settled if the judges remain in office.

A rare confrontation with the judiciary

Impeachment proceedings against judges are an exceptional step in Nepal's constitutional practice. Targeting a sitting Chief Justice alongside another justice of the Supreme Court sets the RSP on a direct collision course with the leadership of the country's highest court, and places the legislature's impeachment powers at the centre of the dispute.

For the RSP, the decision announced after Saturday's meeting signals that the party regards the controversy as beyond the capacity of the Judicial Council to resolve and too significant to leave unaddressed. For the judiciary, the party's position is unambiguous: the two judges should resign, or face an impeachment motion in Parliament.

The question of whether Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and Justice Hari Phuyal will respond by stepping down, or whether the RSP will follow through on registering a motion, will now determine the next stage of the dispute. Until one of those outcomes materialises, the controversy that prompted the Chabahil meeting remains unresolved, with Parliament positioned by the party as the institution that must finally settle it.

As reported by Rajdhani Daily.