Complaint filed against proposed Supreme Court judge Niraula

Kathmandu, November 7 — Parliamentary hearing for the proposed Supreme Court judges, Nityananda Pandey and Nripadhwaj Niraula, is scheduled for Friday. The Parliamentary Hearing Committee has received one complaint against one of the proposed judges, while no complaints have been registered against the other.

The committee had announced on October 1 that they were accepting complaints against the two nominees. According to committee sources, only Judge Nripadhwaj Niraula has received complaints.

Complaint against Niraula
The sources confirmed that two complaints had been filed, but both were against Niraula. One of the complaints was sent via email, while the other came from an individual currently residing in Lalitpur, originally from Kavre.

One complaint alleges that Niraula was involved in irregularities in the construction of the Supreme Court building in collusion with former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. The other complaint questions Niraula’s qualifications, claiming he was recommended for the post despite not meeting the required criteria.

The first complaint details how Niraula, while serving as the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, allegedly colluded with Cholendra Rana to manipulate contracts for building construction, leading to corruption. The Supreme Court's current building, which was affected by the 2015 earthquake, was later rebuilt with a contract worth approximately NPR 5.2 billion, awarded to Kalika-Sammanatar JV. This contract was controversial from the beginning, with allegations of irregularities.

The complaint accuses Niraula of intervening in the building construction process, including in contracts for other court buildings. The irregularities in the bidding process for this construction were reported to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) but were not pursued by Rana. After the impeachment motion against Rana, he was suspended.

The second complaint against Niraula questions how he was recommended for the position of judge despite not meeting the necessary qualifications. The complainants pointed out that his promotion from Chief Registrar to the position of Judge was irregular, especially given that his predecessor, Rajan Bhattarai, was more senior.

Qualifications and alleged misuse of power
The complaints also highlight concerns about Niraula's qualifications. As per the complaint, Niraula was not only appointed Chief Judge of Patan High Court without proper qualifications but was also allegedly involved in financial irregularities during his tenure. For example, as Chief Registrar, Niraula was reportedly involved in dubious deals regarding vehicle procurement and building contracts for the Supreme Court.

The complainants argue that Niraula’s lack of integrity and questionable decisions during his tenure as Chief Registrar make him unsuitable for a judgeship at the Supreme Court. They further question the propriety of appointing someone with his background, particularly when his earlier decisions, such as removing Rajan Bhattarai from the Chief Registrar position and manipulating his way into the post, are seen as acts of favoritism.

Committee's absence of Chairperson
The parliamentary hearing committee is set to open the complaints against the two nominees, but the committee chairperson, Ishwari Neupane, is currently abroad. In her absence, the committee meeting will proceed under the leadership of the senior-most member, as is customary in the case of such absences.

Neupane, who is in the United States for family reasons, confirmed to Ratopati that her absence was due to personal obligations and that she had informed the Parliament General Secretary, her party’s whip, and other relevant parties prior to leaving. She mentioned that her trip was to visit her son, a professor in the U.S., and her elderly mother. She is expected to return to Nepal in 10-15 days.

Controversy over Neupane’s absence
There has been some criticism about Neupane’s absence without informing the committee beforehand, but Neupane defended her actions, stating that she had notified the necessary parties before leaving.

In her absence, the senior-most member of the committee will oversee the proceedings, as was the case during the hearing for the proposed Ambassador to Belgium.