KATHMANDU: In the annals of Nepal’s judicial history, few names resonate as powerfully as that of former Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha.
Renowned for his unwavering integrity, bold decisions, and commitment to justice, Shrestha carved a legacy defined by landmark verdicts that shaped the trajectory of Nepal’s legal and constitutional landscape.
Born on April 14, 1951, in the Nepal’s Baglung district, Shrestha’s journey from humble beginnings to the pinnacle of Nepal’s judiciary reflects his relentless pursuit of excellence.
He earned a Master’s degree in Arts from Tribhuvan University in 1975 and later pursued a Graduate Diploma in International Law and Development from the Institute of Social Sciences, The Hague, Netherlands, in 1984.
His judicial career began as a section officer in the Supreme Court of Nepal and the Government of Nepal’s Local Development Department (1972–1974), before rising through the ranks as a district judge (1985–1990) and appellate court judge (1990–2005), ultimately serving as Chief Judge of the Appellate Court in Jumla in 2005.
Justice Shrestha’s verdict remains a defining moment in Nepal’s judicial history, showcasing the judiciary’s crucial role in preserving the integrity of democratic institutions.
Appointed as Chief Justice ( 8 July 2015 – 12 April 2016) during one of Nepal’s most turbulent political periods, Shrestha’s tenure at the Supreme Court—from 2005 to 2016—was marked by transformative reforms in Nepal’s judiciary and fearless leadership.
Despite serving just nine months as Chief Justice, he appointed 11 justices to the Supreme Court and successfully established the constitutional bench within the court, resisting calls for a separate constitutional court. His judicial acumen was matched by his administrative prowess, leading reforms to enhance transparency and efficiency.
A globally recognized legal mind, listed among the world’s most towering judges by Cambridge University Press, Shrestha has contributed to Nepal’s legal framework as a co-author of key constitutional texts and as a draftsman of the 1990 Constitution. He continues to serve in various pivotal roles, including Chairperson of the Constituent Assembly Court, President of SAARC LAW and the Judges Society Nepal, and Convener of multiple judicial reform initiatives—cementing his enduring influence on Nepal’s justice system. Nepal News takes a closer look at a few notable verdicts from the tenure of former Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha, whose decisions left a lasting impact on Nepal’s judicial landscape. Over the coming weeks, we’ll delve deeper into the full scope of his rulings. But here’s a snapshot of some verdicts that defined his legacy in the Supreme Court of Nepal:
Justice Kalyan Shrestha’s Landmark Verdict Safeguards Nepali Army Independence, Professionalism, and Apolitical Integrity:
In a landmark verdict on March 18, 2009, Supreme Court Justice Kalyan Shrestha ordered the immediate reinstatement of eight brigadier generals whose service extensions had been denied by the Maoist-led government under Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda).
The court’s directive to the army headquarters to immediately halt any retirement process underscored the urgency of the matter, ensuring that the generals would not be forced out due to bureaucratic delays.
The court also directed the Nepal Army Headquarters to halt any retirement proceedings, as their terms were set to expire the same day, ensuring the verdict’s immediate implementation.
Failure to verdict on that day would have resulted in the generals’ forced retirement, effectively serving the Maoist government’s objective of reshaping military leadership for political gain.
The verdict stressed the importance of maintaining the Nepal Army as an apolitical, professional institution, free from any party’s influence.
At that time, the Maoist government made all out efforts to retired eight senior generals of the Nepali Army amid an ongoing dispute with the Army Chief.
The eight brigadier generals were dismissed after the government rejected the Army’s recommendations to extend their terms by three years.
The departure of these officers, some of whom would have advanced to higher ranks, created a significant operational gap within the force and potentially facilitated the easier integration of Maoist guerrillas into the Nepali Army.
The Maoist-led government had intensified the intermediation at that time, a move widely seen as an attempt to exert political control over the army, disrupt the military’s chain of command, and insert Maoist sympathizers into senior ranks.
The Maoist-led government’s decision to deny the extension of the brigadier generals’ tenure was part of a broader strategy to create a crisis within the Nepali Army, undermining trust in the Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal.
Their objective was to disrupt the chain of command, as high-ranking officials bypassed military protocols to seek political alliances with the Maoists, thereby threatening the army’s professional integrity, apolitical status and army chief authority.
In the landmark verdict byJustice Shrestha, overturned the government’s decision, effectively halting political interference in the Nepali Army and safeguarding its independence and professionalism.
Justice Shrestha’s legal reasoning highlighted that political interference in military affairs not only undermines peace process and national security but also jeopardizes the foundations of democracy.
This ruling had a profound impact on Nepal’s peace process, Nepali Army professional, apolitical characteristics and civil-military relations.
Legal scholars believe the verdict will have lasting implications for Nepal’s fragile democratic institutions, signaling a shift toward greater judicial independence and accountability in public office.
It restored the army’s chain of command, reaffirmed trust within the military leadership, and set a powerful precedent against Maoist political encroachment in military institution.
Justice Shrestha’s verdict remains a defining moment in Nepal’s judicial history, showcasing the judiciary’s crucial role in preserving the integrity of democratic institutions.
Justice Kalyan Shrestha’s Bench Convicts Ex-Home Minister Khum Bahadur Khadka in Landmark Corruption Case:
On August 13, 2012, In a landmark ruling that underscores Nepal’s judiciary’s commitment to combating high-level corruption and complex case, the Supreme Court convicted former Home Minister and senior Nepali Congress leader Khum Bahadur Khadka on charges of corruption.
Justice Kalyan Shrestha was the principal author of the decision, which legal experts have hailed as a pivotal moment in Nepal’s fight against entrenched political corruption.
The verdict, delivered by a division bench of Justices Kalyan Shrestha and Baidya Nath Upadhyay sentenced Khadka to 18 months in prison and imposed a fine of Rs 9.4 million, ordering the confiscation of property of an equivalent amount.
Bench convicted Khadka guilty of amassing wealth disproportionate to his legal income during his tenure in various high-profile government positions, including as Minister of Home Affairs and Minister of Local Development in the post-1990 democratic era.
The case dates back to March 2007, when the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Nepal’s top anti-corruption body, appealed to the Supreme Court after the Special Court acquitted Khadka in November 2006.
The CIAA’s chargesheet alleged that Khadka had accumulated property worth Rs 23.6 million without a legitimate source of income, leveraging his political influence during his time in public office.
Justice Shrestha in the order also criticized the Attorney General’s Office for halting the investigations, which had cited the jurisdiction of the yet-to-be-established Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) over conflict-related cases.
Khadka, a powerful figure within the Nepali Congress, last served as Home Minister in 2002. His conviction marks a rare instance of a high-ranking political leader facing legal consequences for corruption, setting a precedent that has since influenced the prosecution of other top-level officials.
Legal scholars believe the verdict will have lasting implications for Nepal’s fragile democratic institutions, signaling a shift toward greater judicial independence and accountability in public office.
The case has emboldened subsequent anti-corruption efforts, with several high-profile investigations and convictions following in its wake.
Justice Kalyan Shrestha Orders Investigation into Dekendra Raj Thapa’s Murder, Directs Attorney General to Ensure Accountability
On January 15, 2013, in a significant ruling, Justice Kalyan Shrestha of the Supreme Court of Nepal issued a landmark verdict, directing a comprehensive investigation into the murder of journalist Dekendra Raj Thapa.
Shrestha issued a stay order allowing the Dailekh District Police and District Attorney’s Office to continue recording statements from the accused in the Dekendra Raj Thapa murder case.
The police and public prosecutor had halted the process after receiving instructions from the Attorney General’s Office to cease further action.
Following the government under the Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai intervene the investigation, advocates filed a petition on January 13, 2013 challenging government move to stop the investigation and prompting the Supreme Court to intervene.
Justice Shrestha ordered that investigations proceed immediately and instructed the Dailekh Police and District Attorney’s Office to inform the court if they encounter any obstacles.
Thapa, a journalist from Dailekh, was abducted by Maoist insurgents on August 11, 2004, tortured, and buried alive 45 days later in Naumule. Despite opposition from the Maoists, Thapa’s body was exhumed in 2008 for DNA testing.
His wife, Laxmi Thapa, filed an FIR in August 2008, seeking justice. After a brief halt in 2013, the Supreme Court intervened, and the case was resumed.
The verdict, delivered by a constitutional bench, marked a decisive stand against impunity, affirming that grave crimes—including torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and sexual violence—cannot be pardoned under the guise of reconciliation.
Justice Shrestha in the order also criticized the Attorney General’s Office for halting the investigations, which had cited the jurisdiction of the yet-to-be-established Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) over conflict-related cases.
Justice Shrestha stated that the TRC could not obstruct the regular judicial process, reinforcing the principle of continued judicial action in such cases.
The case was halted in January 2013 after then-Attorney General Mukti Pradhan instructed local police and prosecutors to suspend proceedings.
However, on January 15, 2013, after the Justice intervened, ordering then-Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and Attorney General Pradhan to cease interfering with the investigation.
After the Supreme Court Verdict, case had been filled in the Dailekh District Court. Justice Shrestha’s ruling emphasized the urgency of the investigation and ordered the Attorney General to ensure that the case was pursued with immediate effect.
The court highlighted that accountability for grave human rights violations, irrespective of the political or ideological affiliations of the perpetrators, must be upheld. The judgment also stressed the government’s responsibility in facilitating the investigation and ensuring that the families of victims, like Thapa, receive the justice they deserve.
Justice Shrestha’s verdict demonstrated the Court’s steadfast dedication to ensuring that no individual—regardless of rank or political influence—could escape the consequences of their actions.
The ruling sent a powerful message that the pursuit of justice, particularly for those victimized during the insurgency, must remain resolute and uncompromising.
It set a significant precedent for tackling impunity in Nepal and reinforced the nation’s commitment to upholding human rights and rule of law.
Strikes Down Amnesty Provisions in TRC Act, Reinforcing Justice for Victims:
On February 26, 2015, In a landmark ruling that reshaped Nepal’s transitional justice landscape, the Supreme Court of Nepal, led by Justice Kalyan Shrestha, struck down key provisions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Act, 2014, declaring them unconstitutional.
In a broader effort to provide justice, the ruling also pushed the government to launch programs in education, employment, and financial sectors to assist the affected families, ensuring they receive the necessary support and relief.
The provisions in question allowed amnesty for individuals accused of serious human rights violations committed during the country’s brutal armed insurgency from 1996 to 2006.
The verdict, delivered by a constitutional bench, marked a decisive stand against impunity, affirming that grave crimes—including torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and sexual violence—cannot be pardoned under the guise of reconciliation.
“Justice cannot be compromised in the name of political settlements,” the court asserted, reinforcing Nepal’s obligations under international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Justice Kalyan Shrestha, known for his unwavering commitment to judicial independence and human rights, played a pivotal role in authoring the judgment. The ruling not only set a legal precedent in Nepal’s transitional justice process but also sent a powerful message: “Reconciliation cannot come at the expense of justice.”
The case was brought before the court by conflict-era victims, human rights defenders, and civil society organizations, who argued that the TRC Act violated constitutional protections and international human rights standards.
The court’s decision ensured that victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation would not be overridden by political deals seeking to shield perpetrators from accountability.
This verdict has since been hailed by legal experts and human rights advocates as a cornerstone in Nepal’s journey toward addressing the wounds of its conflict era, reaffirming the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of constitutional values and the rule of law.
Supreme Court Ruling Compels Government to Act on Enforced Disappearances
In a landmark judgment on June 1, 2007, the Supreme Court of Nepal, Justices Kalyan Shrestha and Khil Raj Regmi, directed the government to provide compensation mandate addressing enforced disappearances.
The Court ordered the government to provide compensation to the families of 83 victims who had disappeared while in the custody of security forces during the conflict.
The verdict also called for the prosecution of the security officials responsible for these disappearances. It emphasized the need for the government to criminalize enforced disappearances and form an independent commission to investigate the matter.
The Court directed the government to offer Rs 2 lakh to the families of those killed in detention and Rs 1 lakh for families of those who disappeared. This compensation aims to address the deep grief and hardship faced by the victims’ families.
The Supreme Court on September 22, 2011, issued a directive order to the government to review the quasi-judicial powers granted to Chief District Officers (CDOs) under laws such as the Public Security Act 1970 and the Arms and Ammunition Act 1962, which authorize CDOs to hear criminal cases.
In a broader effort to provide justice, the ruling also pushed the government to launch programs in education, employment, and financial sectors to assist the affected families, ensuring they receive the necessary support and relief.
Blocks Surrogacy Services in Nepal
On August 25, 2015, Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha of the Supreme Court issued an order halting the government’s decision to allow foreign couples access to surrogacy services in Nepal.
The court ruled that the practice violated constitutional rights, prohibiting the commercialization of women’s reproductive services.
The ruling came after a writ petition was filed against the operation of surrogacy services, with hospitals like Grande City Clinic offering these services without legal permission. The petitioners argued that such practices were unethical and contradicted existing laws.
The court directed the Ministry of Health and Population to stop implementing the surrogacy provisions outlined in Nepal’s health policy, marking a significant step in regulating reproductive services in the country.
Supreme Court Reprimands CIAA Over Unlawful Raid on Legal Advisors Forum
On January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled against the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) for conducting an unlawful raid on Shambhu Thapa’s Legal Advisors Forum on September 6, 2013.
The raid was based on suspicion of tax evasion but was found to have violated due process, as the CIAA lacked a proper investigation or institutional decision.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha and Senior Justice Shushila Karki, declared the raid null and void, emphasizing that the CIAA had overstepped its jurisdiction by invading professional privacy without adequate due diligence.
The Court also criticized the agency for acting solely on a letter, without a preliminary investigation.
The bench also cautioned the CIAA and Chief Commissioner Lokman Singh Karki against infringing on an individual’s professional rights, dignity, and right to confidentiality without conducting proper investigations and reaching a valid conclusion.
The verdict instructed the CIAA to adhere to legal procedures and ensure future actions like raids are conducted with proper investigation and within its constitutional limits.
A special bench comprising Justices Kalyan Shrestha, Sushila Karki, and Kamal Narayan Das ruled that granting a pardon while a petition demanding the execution of Dhungel’s verdict was still sub judice could undermine the judicial process.
The SC verdict noted that while law practitioners are bound by legal duties to submit taxes as per the law, the CIAA overstepped its jurisdiction in this case.
SC Directs Government to Review CDO’s Quasi-Judicial Powers
The Supreme Court on September 22, 2011, issued a directive order to the government to review the quasi-judicial powers granted to Chief District Officers (CDOs) under laws such as the Public Security Act 1970 and the Arms and Ammunition Act 1962, which authorize CDOs to hear criminal cases.
The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Advocacy Forum (AF) on December 31, 2009, challenging the CDO’s jurisdiction.
A special bench comprising Justices Kalyan Shrestha, Girish Chandra Lal, and Sushila Karki ordered a review of these provisions and issued a mandamus for their immediate implementation.
The petitioners argued that the CDO’s powers violated Articles 24(9), 100, and 101 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal 2006, as well as Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
However, the Court stopped short of declaring these provisions unconstitutional, citing the risk of a legal vacuum without alternative bodies to handle such cases.
Supreme Court Blocks Government’s Pardon Move for Bal Krishna Dhungel
On November 22, 2011, the Supreme Court barring the government from implementing its decision to recommend a presidential pardon for Maoist Constituent Assembly member Bal Krishna Dhungel.
A special bench comprising Justices Kalyan Shrestha, Sushila Karki, and Kamal Narayan Das ruled that granting a pardon while a petition demanding the execution of Dhungel’s verdict was still sub judice could undermine the judicial process.
The bench criticized the government for seeking to pardon Dhungel instead of respecting the court’s earlier verdict, which sentenced him to life imprisonment for the 1998 murder of Ujjan Kumar Shrestha in Okhaldhunga.
The court directed the Office of the President, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, and the Council of Ministers to suspend the pardon recommendation until the case reaches a final verdict.
This decision followed a writ petition filed by Sabiti Shrestha on November 13, 2011, challenging the Cabinet’s recommendation.
A single bench of Justice Tahir Ali Ansari had initially stayed the government’s decision, citing constitutional and legal complexities, and referred the matter to a special bench for further review.
(Note: As part of Nepal News’ commitment to innovation and the use of advanced technology, we have incorporated artificial intelligence in the creation of this content. While AI was involved in the writing process, we strive to maintain high editorial standards in all of our work. However, due to the AI-driven nature of the content, some aspects may not fully align with our usual precision. We encourage your feedback to help us refine our approach and continue serving our readers with quality information.)
