KATHMANDU - The Supreme Court on Monday called on the concerned authorities to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into media reports and social media posts involving the chief justice and other justices of the apex court, and to make the findings of the probe public as soon as possible. The direction forms part of a five-point decision issued by a full court meeting held at the Supreme Court, which also expressed concern over the controversy surrounding the country's highest judiciary. The full court had earlier discussed the various questions raised regarding the judiciary before arriving at Monday's decision, which has now been made public.

Full Court Issues Five-Point Decision

The five-point decision was adopted at a full court meeting of the Supreme Court held on Monday. A full court meeting, also referred to as a plenary meeting, brings the justices of the apex court together and serves as the Supreme Court's highest deliberative forum for taking institutional decisions on matters that concern the judiciary as a whole. According to the decision made public, the meeting expressed concern over the media reports and social media posts that have raised questions involving the chief justice and other justices.

The choice to respond through a full court meeting underlines the weight the Supreme Court has attached to the matter. Rather than leaving the questions to individual justices or to informal channels, the court's top deliberative body has articulated a collective institutional position. The five-point decision, as reported by RatoPati English, was made public after the meeting, allowing the wider public to see how the judiciary has chosen to address the controversy.

Independent Probe and Public Findings at the Core

At the heart of the decision is a clear demand: the concerned authorities should carry out an independent and impartial investigation into the media reports and social media posts involving the chief justice and other Supreme Court justices. Equally significant is the court's insistence that the findings of such an investigation be made public as soon as possible. Taken together, the two elements reflect an effort to move the controversy out of the realm of speculation and social media discussion and into a formal process capable of establishing the facts.

Key elements of the decision made public

  • The concerned authorities have been called upon to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the media reports and social media posts involving the chief justice and other justices.
  • The findings of the investigation are to be made public as soon as possible.
  • The full court expressed concern over the matter.
  • The decision follows the full court's earlier discussions of the various questions raised regarding the judiciary.
  • The five-point decision was issued by the full court meeting held on Monday and has since been made public.

Questions Raised Against the Judiciary

The backdrop to Monday's decision is the set of questions raised regarding the judiciary, which the full court had discussed earlier. The five-point decision specifically references media reports and social media posts involving the chief justice and other justices as the subject of its concern. While the reports and posts have circulated publicly, the full court's response has been to seek a verified account of the facts through an official investigation rather than to engage in point-by-point rebuttal.

The demand for a probe carries particular weight because the chief justice heads the Nepali judiciary and presides over the Supreme Court. Questions directed at that office, and at other justices of the apex court, touch directly on the credibility of the institution responsible for interpreting the constitution and delivering final justice. An investigation that is both independent and impartial, followed by the prompt publication of its findings, is the course the full court has identified as the way to resolve the uncertainty.

What Comes Next

The decision places responsibility for the investigation on the "concerned authorities," and the court's emphasis on publishing the findings quickly signals the urgency the full court attaches to the matter. What the court has made explicit is its expectation that the outcome be disclosed without delay, so that the questions hanging over the judiciary can be answered on the basis of evidence rather than assertion.

For now, the five-point decision stands as the Supreme Court's formal institutional response to the controversy. With the decision public, attention will turn to how the concerned authorities respond to the call, whether an investigation proceeds along the lines the full court has set out, and how quickly the findings are placed before the public. Through the full court, the judiciary has stated its position plainly: the questions surrounding the chief justice and other justices should be settled through an independent, impartial and transparent process, and settled soon.