KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has issued three landmark rulings involving former Speaker and CPN (Maoist Centre) Vice-Chair Agni Prasad Sapkota, significantly advancing the legal process in a long-standing wartime murder case while dismissing other related petitions.

A five-member Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Prakashman Singh Raut, with Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, Manoj Kumar Sharma, and Kumar Chudal, delivered a decisive order in the case filed by Purnimaya Lama, the wife of Arjun Lama.

Arjun Lama, a local businessman and chair of the school management committee in Kavre district, was abducted on April 29, 2005 during Nepal’s Maoist insurgency. He was taken from a meeting at Shree Krishna Secondary School in Dapcha by Maoist cadres and subsequently disappeared, presumed killed.

The police initially began investigating the case, but on July 27, 2012, the Cabinet under then-Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai controversially halted the investigation. Challenging this decision, Purnimaya Lama filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court on November 23, 2022, demanding a criminal investigation and prosecution of Sapkota and other Maoist leaders implicated in the case, including Suryaman Dong, Yadav Poudel, Bhola Aryal, Karnakhar Gautam, and Norbu Moktan.

The Supreme Court’s recent order has nullified the 2012 Cabinet decision, thereby mandating the police to resume investigation and move forward with legal proceedings against Sapkota, effectively ending a 14-year legal deadlock.

In two other rulings related to Sapkota, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed on April 8, 2016 by advocate Sushil Pyakurel and seven others, which sought to bar Sapkota from becoming a government minister due to the ongoing allegations. The court ruled there was insufficient legal basis to prevent his political appointment.

Additionally, Sapkota’s contempt of court petition against prominent journalist and civil society activist Kanak Mani Dixit was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, which found the claim lacked sufficient grounds.