Nepal’s Supreme Court failed to convene its Constitutional Bench on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, due to a dispute among judges over the bench’s formation. The incident has brought to the surface underlying tensions that have been building since Chief Justice Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma assumed office approximately four and a half months ago.
Dispute Over Bench Composition
The cause list for Wednesday included an unusual addition: Justice Hari Phuyal, who had not been part of Constitutional Benches formed under Chief Justice Sharma. Phuyal was listed alongside Chief Justice Sharma and Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Nahakul Subedi, and Abdul Aziz Musalman.
Following the publication of the cause list, Justice Phuyal reportedly met with Chief Justice Sharma and the other three judges. According to one of the judges present, Phuyal questioned the process of forming the bench, stating he would only sit if the matter was discussed at a full court meeting and a clear procedure was established for future bench formations.
Chief Justice Sharma asserted that selecting the four judges to sit with him on the bench was his prerogative and did not require full court discussion. This response led Phuyal to question why he had not been included previously and why he was needed now, stating he could not sit on a bench formed in such a subjective manner.
Sharma reportedly cited a similar practice during the tenure of former Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut. However, Phuyal dismissed the comparison, reportedly telling Sharma, “How can you compare Raut with you? You are not the same.”
When Phuyal indicated he would not sit, the other three judges—Malla, Subedi, and Musalman—also declined to proceed, stating, “If that is the case, then we cannot sit either.” Consequently, the Constitutional Bench did not sit, and the judges returned to their chambers.
Deeper Tensions Emerge
The dispute over the bench formation is seen as a manifestation of deeper rifts within the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Sharma was appointed despite being fourth in the seniority ranking, a decision that reportedly dissatisfied more than half of the judges, particularly those senior to him.
Some judges suggest that tensions initially surfaced over Constitutional Bench formations and have since spilled into the court’s full court meetings. A senior Supreme Court official commented that Sharma has failed to take dissatisfied judges into confidence, appearing more comfortable within a small circle, which has widened disagreements.
Judges familiar with the matter indicate that Sharma has not secured the confidence of some senior judges who would traditionally be expected to serve on Constitutional Benches. Instead, they claim, he began selecting judges based on his own preference, affecting the bench’s functioning. Judges senior to Sharma at the time of his appointment, including Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, and Hari Phuyal, were reportedly not always included, with judges like Sharanga Subedi and Binod Sharma being selected instead.
Differences have also emerged over issuing interim orders in petitions challenging government decisions. The Constitutional Bench reportedly became a more difficult environment for Sharma, leading to changes in its composition, with judges like Subedi and Sharma being increasingly selected. Sources suggest that Sharma began altering the composition and including senior judges after the Nepal Bar Association, Nepal’s umbrella organization of legal professionals, publicly objected to the practice. However, even after changes, Malla, Regmi, and Phuyal were reportedly never placed together on the same bench, and Phuyal had not appeared on any Constitutional Bench since Sharma became chief justice until Wednesday.
The disagreement over bench formation is not the sole source of tension. Dissatisfaction has also grown over other administrative and judicial decisions, such as the appointment of Basudev Acharya as chair of the Special Court and the promotion of District Judge Himlal Belbase to the High Court.
Nepal Bar Association’s Stance
The Nepal Bar Association, Nepal’s umbrella organization of legal professionals, has expressed serious concern over the dispute, demanding clear and predetermined criteria for forming Constitutional Benches, suggesting seniority or a lottery system. The association has warned of strong protests against judicial arbitrariness if its suggestions are ignored.
Judicial Appointments and Dissent
Adding to the judicial landscape, the Judicial Council, the constitutional body that recommends judges for appointment, transfer, disciplinary action, and terms of service, recommended four new judges for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 6, 2026: Dr. Ratna Bahadur Bagchand, Chandra Bahadur Saru, Janak Pandey, and Gokarna Dangi. However, senior Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and Justice Mahesh Nepal registered dissenting opinions, citing violations of seniority and a lack of inclusivity in the recommendation process.
Looking Ahead
The four newly recommended Supreme Court judges will now face a parliamentary hearing. The outcome of this hearing, especially given the noted dissent, remains to be seen. Furthermore, it is yet to be confirmed whether a full court meeting will be convened to discuss clear procedures for forming Constitutional Benches as requested by Justice Phuyal.
