KATHMANDU: On September 9, 2025, during the Gen Z protests, vandalism, arson, and looting took place at the Budhanilkantha-based residence of Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and the then Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba. Videos emerged showing the Deuba couple being dragged and beaten until they were bloodied. After receiving medical treatment within the country for some time, they made a public appearance and subsequently went to Singapore for further treatment.

Meanwhile, the government has stopped the demolition of the Deuba couple’s ruined house, and the Department of Money Laundering Investigation is conducting an investigation into them. At the request of the department, the Kathmandu District Court issued an arrest warrant against them on April 7, 2026. However, since they were in Hong Kong, they were not arrested. Instead, they filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, claiming that their fundamental rights were about to be violated.

On Monday, the Supreme Court quashed the permission, stating that legal procedures were bypassed both while requesting and granting the permission for the arrest warrant. A joint bench of Justices Mahesh Sharma Paudel and Nityananda Pandey issued the interim order on the writ petition registered at the Supreme Court on May 15 on behalf of Deuba, requesting not to arrest them.

The Kathmandu District Court had claimed that the permission for the arrest warrant was granted pursuant to Sub-sections 2 and 4 of Section 9 of the National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act, 2017. Sub-section 2 states, ‘If a person needs to be arrested immediately in connection with an offense, an application disclosing the reasons and, as far as possible, the identifying details of the person to be arrested, must be submitted to the adjudicating authority for permission to issue an arrest warrant.’

Article 133 of the Constitution grants every citizen the right to approach the court if their fundamental rights are violated. Accordingly, the Deuba couple exercised their right to approach the court for their defense before being arrested. The Supreme Court holds extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights or to enforce such rights if no other remedy is provided. The Deuba couple filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court, stating that they suffered massive physical, mental, and financial damage during the Gen Z protests, and that the issuance of the arrest warrant out of vendetta while they were in Hong Kong for treatment was a violation of their rights.

Chandeshwar Shrestha, former president of the Nepal Bar Association, states that the Constitution gives citizens the right to approach the court for protection if their fundamental rights are violated, if they learn that a violation is about to occur, or if there is a lack of clear law. “The warrant, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Special Court, was obtained from the District Court. Seeking a legal remedy in this regard is a matter of an individual’s fundamental right,” Senior Advocate Shrestha says. “Every citizen has the right to file a petition in court not only after being detained, but also if they learn that they are about to be kept in illegal detention. The court may or may not issue an order in accordance with the citizen’s demand.”

In the writ petition, the Deuba couple stated that their right to life under Article 16 of the Constitution, right to freedom under Article 17, right to equality under Article 18, Sub-clause 1, right relating to justice under Article 20, and right to property under Article 25, Sub-clause 1, had been infringed upon.

The Supreme Court has also interpreted that the legal method and format were not followed when requesting permission to issue an arrest warrant against them, as well as when the Kathmandu District Court granted it. The Supreme Court ruled that both the State—which wanted to detain the citizens—and the lower court had bypassed the legal process.

Similarly, without explicitly mentioning the names of Deuba and his wife, permission for arrest was also sought pursuant to Sections 15 and 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2007.

Section 16(1)(c) of the Act stipulates that ‘if there are reasonable grounds to suspect or accuse a person of committing or being involved in an offense related to money laundering and terrorist financing, and if that person is likely to abscond, destroy or disappear evidence, or cause obstruction or adverse impact on the investigation proceedings, they may be arrested and kept in detention.’

However, as mentioned in the Supreme Court’s order, the District Court did not appear to have followed this provision either. The Supreme Court stated, “When requesting permission to issue an arrest warrant from the Department of Money Laundering Investigation, and when the Kathmandu District Court granted the permission, no grounds or reasons appeared to have been disclosed.”

Regarding this matter, the Supreme Court has cautioned both the investigative body and the court. “Since the jurisdiction to hear cases regarding offenses investigated by the Department of Money Laundering lies with the Special Court, the permission granted by the Kathmandu District Court to issue the arrest warrant prior to the issuance of the ordinance appears to become inactive,” states the Supreme Court’s order issued on May 25. “On that basis, an interim order has been issued directing not to arrest or cause the arrest of the petitioners.”