KATHMANDU, Sept 30: Inspector General of Police Dan Bahadur Karki was with Home Minister Sudan Gurung when an order reportedly came from the Prime Minister’s Secretariat on Saturday night to detain former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana.
According to sources, Gurung instructed Karki to take Rana into custody but could provide no legal basis for doing so. Karki reportedly warned that police had no authority to detain Rana in the absence of a criminal offence and that such action could create legal problems.
Prime Minister Balendra Shah reportedly issued the order shortly after returning from the United States after attending the UN General Assembly. Unable to stop the directive, the Home Ministry passed it on, and police took Rana from his residence to the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office in Teku around midnight.
Sources say the Prime Minister’s Secretariat wanted Rana kept in custody. But with no complaint registered against him, police feared that detaining a former chief justice could have serious consequences. After consultation with the home minister, police instead said Rana had been moved because of a security threat and released him to his family on Sunday afternoon.
Police claimed they had received information about plans discussed on Discord by individuals associated with the Gen Z movement to attack Rana at his home. The government, however, has provided little information about the alleged threat or whether those behind it are being investigated.
Government spokesperson Sasmita Pokharel repeated on Tuesday that Rana had been moved for security reasons but could not explain who had threatened him or what action was being taken against them.
The controversy has left Nepal Police facing questions over an action apparently initiated by the political leadership.
Law Commission makes ‘Law Drafting Guidelines’ public
A National Human Rights Commission team that went to meet Rana on Sunday was denied access. The commission questioned Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office chief SSP Santosh Khadka on Tuesday.
Police officials say Home Minister Gurung was in the best position to advise the Prime Minister against the detention. IGP Karki had reportedly explained the legal difficulties, but the order still went ahead.
The episode has renewed complaints within Nepal Police that political leaders increasingly expect the force to carry out controversial instructions without giving investigators sufficient legal grounds or time to gather evidence.
“Who listens to the police now?” one DIG said. “The IGP cannot even meet the Prime Minister, and the home minister cannot take a stand. Where should the police go?”
Police officers say similar problems have repeatedly arisen under successive governments.
Following the Gen Z protests, in which three police personnel were killed, weapons looted and police offices and private properties attacked, police began investigating criminal acts committed during the unrest. Meanwhile, a commission led by former Special Court chair Gauri Karki was formed to investigate the movement.
Complaints were also filed against former prime minister KP Sharma Oli and former home minister Ramesh Lekhak over the use of force during the protests. Police officials said they lacked a clear legal basis to begin criminal proceedings before the commission completed its investigation.
The commission later recommended action against both. After the Balendra Shah government took office, Oli was arrested from his home on March 28, 2026, following a Cabinet decision to implement the report. He was investigated for attempted murder, an unprecedented case involving a former prime minister.
Oli and Lekhak were later released following a Supreme Court order, and authorities have yet to settle how their cases should proceed. Police officials say pressure to arrest suspects before sufficient evidence has been collected leaves the force exposed when courts subsequently order their release.
“The government can issue instructions, but police need time to investigate and collect sufficient evidence before arresting someone,” another DIG said. “Otherwise, the court releases the person and the police alone face the criticism.”
Similar political pressure has surfaced in other high profile cases.
Before the Gen Z protests, police had reportedly advised the then government to withdraw its social media ban, warning that students could be drawn into protests against the restriction. Officials say the advice was ignored.
Police discretion was also questioned during the investigation of Rastriya Swatantra Party chair Rabi Lamichhane over alleged cooperative fund misuse. After his arrest in Kaski, Lamichhane was taken to Rupandehi, Chitwan, Parsa and Kathmandu for questioning. A government attorney said investigators from those districts could instead have travelled to Kaski to record his statements.
Police later faced accusations of showing less urgency in pursuing Anjana Koirala, wife of UML leader Rishikesh Pokharel, who was accused in a Rs 220 million cooperative fund misuse case in Morang and eventually appeared directly before the court.
Former AIG Uttam Raj Subedi says political interference in criminal investigations weakens the police and risks eroding public confidence in both law enforcement and the justice system.
Political leaders, he said, often pressure police either to pursue or avoid cases depending on the individuals involved, while investigators may also be pushed to act before evidence supports legal proceedings.
Subedi said such practices have continued under successive governments.
“Administrative leaders at the Home Ministry remain silent, while all the blame eventually falls on the police,” he said. “The police organisation must stand together and resist improper pressure over arrests and prosecutions.”
Weakening the police through political interference, he argued, ultimately weakens the state itself.
