Dhurba Giri
Former Prime Minister and Chairman of the CPN (Unified Socialist), Madhav Kumar Nepal, is currently facing legal proceedings as a defendant in the much-debated land misappropriation case linked to Patanjali Yogpeeth. In 2066 B.S. the Cabinet under Nepal’s leadership approved the purchase of 593 ropani of land in Banepa, Kavre, by Patanjali with exemption from land ceiling restrictions. However, it was later found that around 353 ropani of that land had been plotted and sold to a housing company, prompting the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) to file a corruption case against Nepal and 92 others.
This case has stirred not only the judiciary but also raised serious concerns about public trust in governance, as a former prime minister now stands accused in a major corruption scandal. The involvement of a long-serving politician like Madhav Nepal in such a serious economic irregularity is, in itself, a significant matter.
Citing his political engagements and the need to travel across the country, Nepal had filed a petition at the Special Court seeking permission to appoint a legal representative (proxy) in his place during proceedings. However, the joint bench of Judges Tejanarayan Singh Rai and Murari Babu Shrestha denied the request. The Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 B.S., which allows for such a proxy only in cases where the alleged offense carries a sentence of up to three years. Since the charges against Nepal carry a potential sentence of more than three years, the court concluded that the provision did not apply.
The court’s decision is legally sound and firmly grounded in the interpretation of the law. Under Nepal’s criminal code, government-led prosecution cases allow appointment of legal proxies only under strict conditions. This provision is designed to prevent abuse and attempts to evade prosecution. The latest ruling clearly upholds the spirit and letter of the law.
However, politically, this incident sends a complex message. On one hand, bringing a former prime minister before the court in a corruption case sets a positive precedent in the fight against corruption. On the other hand, opposition parties may frame the move as a case of political vendetta. Within Nepal’s own party—CPN (Unified Socialist)—this could spark internal questions about the moral authority and leadership credibility.
The roots of such cases lie in the opaque internal structures of political parties and the lack of transparency and accountability among leaders. As the case against Madhav Nepal progresses, it remains to be seen whether it will become a strong example of anti-corruption in Nepali politics—or another instance of political lobbying and behind-the-scenes ‘settlement.’
Nonetheless, the court’s refusal to allow a proxy for someone who has served in the highest political office sends a clear message: Nepal’s judiciary is asserting the rule of law, regardless of political status. The hope now rests on an impartial and effective investigation that delivers credible outcomes.
