Transparency International Nepal has demanded an immediate investigation into Supreme Court judges whose names have been linked to allegations of violating judicial ethics and the code of conduct. In a statement issued on Monday in Kathmandu, the anti-corruption watchdog said judges who are facing public questions should be probed, and advised that judges embroiled in controversy should recuse themselves from the administration of justice until the issues raised against them are resolved. The demand was made public at a time when the controversy surrounding the judges has continued, keeping questions of judicial ethics firmly in the spotlight.

An anti-corruption body wades into the judicial row

Transparency International Nepal, the Nepali chapter of Transparency International, a global civil society movement that campaigns against corruption, set out its position in a statement released from the capital. The organisation observed that the names of Supreme Court judges have been linked to allegations that they violated the ethics and the code of conduct expected of members of the bench.

On that basis, the statement put forward a clear set of demands:

  • An immediate investigation into the Supreme Court judges whose names have been linked to allegations of ethics and code-of-conduct violations.
  • A formal probe covering judges who are facing public questions over their conduct.
  • Recusal by judges embroiled in controversy, meaning they should not take part in the administration of justice while the issues raised against them remain unresolved.

For the organisation, the message was straightforward: judges confronting public questions should be subject to a formal process of investigation rather than being left to informal scrutiny. The statement marks a direct intervention by a civil society organisation in a debate that has centered on the conduct of the country's highest court, and it comes from a body whose work focuses specifically on integrity and accountability in public institutions.

'Disputed judges' should step aside, says the statement

The most striking element of the statement is its advice on recusal. As reported by Ratopati, Transparency International Nepal said, "It is appropriate for disputed judges not to be involved in the administration of justice until the issues raised are resolved."

In practical terms, the organisation is asking for two things at once. First, the allegations against the judges should be investigated without delay. Second, until that scrutiny is complete and the issues raised are resolved, the judges concerned should withdraw from administering justice. Recusal of this kind, by which a judge steps back when questions arise about their own conduct, is a widely recognised safeguard intended to protect both the fairness of individual proceedings and the credibility of the court as a whole.

Such a step does not amount to a judgment on guilt or innocence. It is a procedural measure aimed at removing doubt while an allegation is being examined, and it is precisely this logic that Transparency International Nepal applied in advising the embroiled judges to recuse themselves.

The advice carries additional weight because it comes from outside the judiciary. The intervention signals that concern over the judges' conduct is not confined to legal circles or public debate, but has drawn the attention of an organisation dedicated to fighting corruption and defending standards in public life.

A call made while the controversy continues

The statement was issued as the controversy over the judges continued, meaning the organisation weighed in while the matter remained unresolved and the judges' names stayed attached to questions of ethics and conduct. Rather than addressing a settled issue, the demand for a probe and recusal was directed at a live dispute.

The intervention underlines an argument that governance watchdogs have long made: public confidence in the courts rests heavily on how allegations against judges are handled. Codes of conduct for judges are meant to bind the bench to standards of integrity and impartiality, and claims that those standards have been breached strike at the heart of that arrangement. Where such claims are examined promptly through a credible investigation, the judiciary demonstrates that its own rules carry weight. Where the questions are left hanging, they risk eroding the trust on which court decisions ultimately depend.

By calling for both an investigation and recusal, Transparency International Nepal has effectively sought to place the burden of restoring clarity on the institutions and individuals concerned. Its position, as laid out on Monday, is unambiguous: judges whose names have been linked to allegations of ethics and code-of-conduct violations should be probed without delay, and those embroiled in controversy should not be involved in the administration of justice until the issues raised against them are resolved. How the judiciary responds to that call will be closely watched.