Supreme Court Rejects Review Petition on Presidential Pardon for Convicted Murderer Yograj Dhakal

Kathmandu. The Supreme Court has rejected a request to uphold the presidential pardon granted to Yograj Dhakal (Regal), who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Chetan Manandhar.

A full bench comprising Supreme Court Justices Kumar Regmi, Hari Prasad Phuyal, Tek Prasad Dhungana, Nripa Dhoj Niraula, and Nityananda Pandey decided not to issue an order in favor of the review. Regal had filed a petition seeking a review of the Supreme Court's previous verdict that overturned the pardon granted by the Office of the President upon the recommendation of the Council of Ministers.

With the Supreme Court denying permission to proceed with the hearing, Dhakal must now serve his full prison sentence. In Ashar 067, Dhakal and others were accused of murdering Chetan Manandhar in the middle of the market in Nepalgunj using a khunda (machete).

Bharti Sherpa had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the decision to grant a pardon for 11 years and 11 months of the sentence to Regal, based on the recommendation of the then government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'. In that writ, a bench of Supreme Court Justices Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada, Sapana Pradhan Malla, and Kumar Chudal had previously overturned the pardon granted by the Office of the President and ordered the recovery of the prison sentence.

The court stated that the decision to grant a pardon for the remainder of Regal's sentence was 'contrary to the rights of the crime victim.' Additionally, it issued a mandamus order to the government to send him to prison immediately.

The Supreme Court noted that since the appeal for the Chetan Manandhar murder case was still pending in the Supreme Court, it was inappropriate to grant a sentence reduction or pardon. Furthermore, the court concluded that the government failed to provide a valid reason for granting the pardon to Regal.

The Supreme Court emphasized that when deciding on a sentence reduction, the provisions of the Prison Regulations must be followed, and the victim's consent must be obtained. It also stated that it must be ensured that the victim receives justice, including social rehabilitation and compensation.

The Supreme Court held that while Article 276 of the Constitution grants the President the power to grant pardons, it is not unconditional. Article 276 provides that the President may grant pardons, suspend, commute, or remit any sentence imposed by any court, judicial or quasi-judicial body, or administrative official or body, in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court interpreted that while previous constitutions granted unconditional pardon powers to the head of state, the 2072 Constitution imposed restrictions by requiring that such actions be taken 'only in accordance with the law.'

'It is not appropriate for the Constitution to introduce a new concept while users continue to follow old concepts, practices, and styles,' the full text of the order stated.