KATHMANDU: For four years, Nepal’s Supreme Court has kept a politically charged case in limbo. The case, which challenges the constitutionality of 52 political appointments made by former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli (when CPN-UML chair KP Sharma Oli was the prime minister), has outlasted four chief justices, each passing it along without resolution. Now, under Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, the country’s highest court constitutional bench is finally moving toward a verdict—one that could have profound implications for Nepal’s democratic governance.

On Wednesday, the five-member Constitutional Bench, led by Raut and including Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Kumar Chudal, and Nahakul Subedi, resumed hearings on the case. Two justices, Kumar Regmi and Hari Phuyal, recused themselves, having previously issued rulings related to the matter. Despite years of delay, momentum is finally building, with the next hearing set for March 19.

The origins of the case stretch back to December 15, 2020, when then-Prime Minister Oli, facing resistance in Parliament, issued an ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act. The amendment allowed him to bypass the standard parliamentary hearing process, giving him near-total control over appointments to key constitutional bodies.

Days later, he dissolved Parliament altogether, effectively eliminating any potential opposition to his appointments. In total, 52 officials were nominated under the revised system, with President Bidya Devi Bhandari swiftly approving them—without a single parliamentary hearing. Though the Supreme Court later reinstated Parliament, the appointments remained untouched, leaving their legitimacy in question.

Critics argue that Oli’s maneuver was an unconstitutional power grab. Senior advocate Shambhu Thapa, representing the petitioners, told the court that the former prime minister had deliberately circumvented democratic checks and balances to consolidate control. “Oli issued the ordinance to increase his authority and ensure his nominees were appointed. When obstacles arose, he went as far as dissolving Parliament,” Thapa argued in court.

At the today hearing, senior advocates representing the petitioners argued that Oli deliberately manipulated the system. “He used the ordinance to expand his power and, when challenged, dissolved Parliament to secure his appointments,” said Shambhu Thapa, a prominent lawyer arguing the case.

The Constitutional Council, which is responsible for recommending appointments to key oversight bodies, is meant to function with a quorum. But Oli circumvented this requirement by introducing an ordinance that changed the rules, effectively granting him unilateral authority over appointments. Legal experts argue that such a move contradicts the checks and balances enshrined in Nepal’s constitution.

Despite the gravity of the case, Nepal’s Supreme Court has been reluctant to rule on it. Since 2020, the case has been postponed repeatedly, with successive chief justices deferring it under various pretexts. The delays have raised uncomfortable questions about the judiciary’s ability—or willingness—to stand up to political power.

The legal dispute hinges on whether the appointments violated Nepal’s constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval. Government lawyers argue that existing House regulations state nominees are automatically confirmed if Parliament fails to conduct hearings within 45 days. Petitioners, however, counter that a parliamentary regulation cannot override the constitution itself.

Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla directly raised this issue during the hearing, questioning whether the House’s internal rules could be treated as equivalent to federal law. Meanwhile, Justice Dr. Nahakul Subedi pointed out that the Constitutional Council made its recommendations while Parliament was still active, challenging the government’s justification for bypassing the hearing process.

A Verdict That Could Redefine Nepal’s Democracy

Now, under Chief Justice Raut, the court appears determined to finally deliver a ruling. Sources close to the judiciary suggest a verdict could come within a month—a decision that will either reinforce Nepal’s fragile constitutional checks or set a precedent for future governments to sidestep them entirely.

If the Supreme Court upholds the appointments, it would send a message that political leaders can exploit legal loopholes to entrench their power. If the appointments are annulled, it would reaffirm the judiciary’s role as a constitutional watchdog, preventing future abuses of executive authority.

After four years of judicial delays and political maneuvering, Nepal’s Supreme Court stands at a crossroads. Whatever the verdict, it will shape the country’s democratic future for years to come.

Legal Maneuvering and Delays

Since the first writ petition was filed in December 2020, the case has faced repeated delays. Multiple chief justices have deferred hearings, keeping the case in legal limbo. A show-cause order was issued in March 2022, and subsequent rulings in June and July of that year consolidated the cases, but no final decision has been reached. In February 2023, the case was placed on an “unable to be heard” list, further stalling progress.

With 24 lawyers representing the petitioners and 10 government attorneys defending the appointments, the legal battle is complex. Justices on the bench have raised fundamental questions about parliamentary authority, constitutional procedures, and executive power. “Was the government following an act or an ordinance? The rule of law was completely disregarded,” argued senior advocate Bhimarjun Acharya.

The Stakes for Nepal’s Democracy

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for Nepal’s constitutional order. If the court upholds the appointments, it could set a precedent for future governments to use ordinances to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. If it annuls them, it would signal a stronger role for the judiciary in checking executive power.

Chief Justice Raut appears determined to deliver the verdict, despite the political pressure. High-level sources suggest that a verdict could arrive within a month. But given Nepal’s history of judicial delays and political interference, nothing is certain. For now, the case remains in limbo—much like the country’s broader struggle between executive authority and democratic accountability.

Supreme Court’s Four-Year Deadlock on Constitutional Appointments Nears End

For four years, Nepal’s Supreme Court has skirted ruling on one of the country’s most politically charged cases: the legitimacy of 52 constitutional appointments made by former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli in 2020. The appointments, pushed through via an ordinance, have remained in legal limbo, with four successive chief justices deferring the case.

Now, Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut determined to break the deadlock. High-level sources suggest a verdict could come within a month, despite intense political pressure. The case, which involves the Office of the President, the Prime Minister’s Office, and members of the Constitutional Council, was last placed on an “unable to be heard” list in early 2023.

The Constitutional Bench, tasked with interpreting the constitution and settling disputes between different levels of government, has been slow to act. Show-cause orders were issued in 2022, but hearings remained fragmented. The case is politically delicate: Oli not only used the ordinance to make appointments but also dissolved parliament to prevent legislative scrutiny.

With the case finally moving forward, Nepal’s judiciary faces a crucial test. A ruling could set a precedent on executive overreach and constitutional governance. Whether the verdict strengthens democratic norms or merely rubber-stamps past political maneuvering remains to be seen.