Supreme Court raises serious concern over former chief justice Rana’s detention

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the detention of former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, saying state agencies must follow due legal process when restricting an individual’s personal liberty.

An emergency full-court meeting on Monday said former chief justices, former judges, serving judges and judicial personnel are integral to an independent judiciary and that the conduct of state agencies towards them is a matter of particular sensitivity.

The court said the Constitution protects every citizen’s right to personal liberty and to live with dignity, and that a person can be taken under state control only by following the procedure prescribed by law. It warned that actions taken without completing due process create room for arbitrariness and cannot be accepted in a democratic system.

The statement came a day after police took Rana from his residence in the early hours of Sunday and released him to his family later the same day. Police initially described the action as an arrest before saying he had been taken to safety following information about a possible security threat. The police have not publicly disclosed the nature or source of the alleged threat.

Recommended

Former chief justice arrested a day after PM’s return, released hours later

The Supreme Court’s intervention, however, goes beyond Rana’s individual case.

The full court also asked stakeholders not to portray or communicate judicial proceedings by linking them to a former office-holder.

The court said it wanted to assure the public that its judicial work would remain free from both internal and external influence.

NHRC summons police chief

The Supreme Court’s statement came as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) began its own inquiry into the incident.

The commission has summoned SSP Santosh Khadka, chief of the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office in Teku, to provide a statement on Tuesday. The summons follows the commission’s complaint that its monitoring team was prevented from meeting Rana while he was being held at the police office.

A three-member NHRC team led by commissioner Manoj Duwadi had gone to Teku on Sunday after learning that Rana had been taken there. Police kept the team at the gate for about 45 minutes and did not allow its members to meet Rana.

NHRC secretary Murari Kharel said the commission summoned Khadka to ask why its monitoring team was denied access and said the commission had also started an investigation into the incident.

The commission has raised questions about possible violations of human rights and constitutional provisions in connection with the episode.

Questions in Parliament

The controversy has also moved into Parliament, where opposition lawmakers on Monday demanded an explanation from the government over the police action.

Lawmakers from the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Nepali Communist Party, Shram Sanskriti Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party questioned the legal basis for taking Rana from his home and the government's explanation that he had been moved because of a security threat.

Nepali Congress lawmaker Ananda Prasad Dhungana questioned why Rana had been taken away at night without a warrant, while UML Chief Whip Ain Bahadur Mahar demanded that the government explain under what legal authority he was taken into police control. Other lawmakers similarly argued that a security threat should have led to strengthened protection rather than taking Rana away from his residence.

RSP lawmakers did not raise the issue during Monday’s parliamentary proceedings, although some party lawmakers had criticised the detention on social media.

Police explanation remains incomplete

Police have maintained that Rana was not arrested in connection with a criminal case.

According to the explanation given by SSP Khadka, police had received information about a possible threat to Rana and took him to the Teku office for his protection. Rana was subsequently released, and police said security would be provided at his residence.

But several questions remain unanswered.

Police have not publicly identified the alleged threat, its source or the person or group believed to have posed it. They have also not explained why Rana had to be taken from his residence rather than protected there.

The latest developments have shifted the issue from the circumstances of Rana’s detention to the conduct of state institutions in responding to it.

The Supreme Court has raised concerns about due process and the treatment of members of the judiciary, while the NHRC is examining why its own monitoring team was denied access to Rana.

The government has yet to provide a fuller public explanation of the legal basis and circumstances of the police operation.