KATHMANDU: Former Prime Minister and CPN (Unified Socialist) Chair Madhav Kumar Nepal, long regarded as one of Nepal’s few relatively “clean” politicians, now finds himself at the center of a high-profile corruption case filed by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA). On June 5, 2025, the anti-graft body formally charged Nepal for his alleged involvement in the Patanjali Yogpeeth land scandal, a development that threatens not only his personal legacy but also opens new fault lines in Nepal’s politics and judicial governance.
The CIAA has sought a 13-year prison sentence and Rs 185.5 million in damages from Nepal and others implicated in the case. The charges relate to the controversial acquisition and resale of land by Patanjali Yogpeeth and Ayurveda Company Nepal—an affiliate of the Indian multinational Patanjali group—in Kavrepalanchok district. According to the CIAA, the company purchased land well beyond the legally permitted ceiling for institutional landholdings and later sold it at inflated rates, in direct violation of land ceiling and transaction laws. Nepal is accused of abusing his authority during his premiership (2009–2011) to facilitate these illegal land deals.
Clean image crumbles
Madhav Nepal’s decades-long political career has been rooted in ideological activism and organizational loyalty. Even his critics admitted that he largely remained untouched by the graft scandals that plagued Nepal’s political class.
This new corruption case shatters that perception, placing him among a growing list of senior political leaders facing legal action for high-level corruption. That the CIAA has attached specific monetary penalties and recommended jail time underscores the gravity of the accusations.
For a man who split the UML and formed CPN (Unified Socialist) under the banner of ideological purity and reformist zeal, this case is more than just a legal battle—it’s a devastating moral blow.
Cabinet decisions under scrutiny
The CIAA’s charges may open a controversial legal frontier: whether Cabinet decisions or executive facilitation in such cases are now fair game for corruption prosecution.
If proven, the implication is that Madhav Nepal, as Prime Minister, either directly or indirectly used his office to enable Patanjali to bypass Nepal’s land ceiling laws—something that, until now, was considered within the purview of “policy decisions” and hence exempt from anti-graft actions.
This sets a dangerous and powerful precedent. If Cabinet decisions from over a decade ago are now open to scrutiny and prosecution, every past Prime Minister and minister could potentially be exposed to legal risk.
This may create a chilling effect on decision-making and further complicate executive governance.
Revenge politics or rule of law?
Given the long-standing feud between Madhav Kumar Nepal and current Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, political observers are questioning the timing and intent behind the CIAA’s move. Nepal’s split from the UML in 2021 to form CPN (Unified Socialist) was a direct affront to Oli’s authority. Since then, relations between the two veteran leaders have been acrimonious.
With CIAA Chief Prem Kumar Rai widely seen as an Oli-era loyalist, many within Nepal’s political circles interpret the move as part of a broader vendetta strategy—an attempt to sideline Oli’s key opponents through legal means. While the CIAA insists the case is based purely on evidence, the perception of political interference in supposedly independent institutions is intensifying, especially with the Prime Minister’s Office having denied any prior knowledge of the CIAA’s move—a claim few in Kathmandu’s power corridors find convincing.
Political fallout for CPN (Unified Socialist)
The repercussions for Nepal’s party are significant. CPN (Unified Socialist), already struggling with organizational instability and electoral decline, now faces an identity crisis. Madhav Nepal is not only the party’s founder but its singular political force. His indictment is likely to weaken the party’s national standing, reduce its bargaining power in coalition politics, and embolden internal critics.
This scandal comes at a time when left-wing parties have been in talks about reunification. Nepal’s indictment complicates these efforts, as no party would want to shoulder the political cost of aligning with someone under serious corruption charges.
Law, politics, and perception
The legal process will be slow and closely watched. Courts must now navigate whether actions taken by the executive in past Cabinets can be categorized as criminal abuse of power. If convicted, Nepal would face jail, restitution, and a total political downfall. Even an acquittal, however, may not fully restore his stature. The very fact that he is facing prosecution is enough to tarnish a lifetime of political service.
This case is also a litmus test for the independence of Nepal’s judicial and investigative systems. Is this a step toward real accountability, or a politically calculated maneuver cloaked in legal procedure? Either answer has serious implications.
If the CIAA succeeds in convicting a former Prime Minister on land corruption charges tied to a high-profile Indian company, it may embolden investigations against others, including sitting ministers and local officials. If it fails, it may further delegitimize anti-corruption bodies already accused of selective enforcement.
A turning point in executive accountability?
The case against Madhav Kumar Nepal marks an unprecedented moment in Nepal’s political history. It blurs the boundary between policy and crime, raises questions about the independence of constitutional bodies, and shows how corruption charges—once reserved for bureaucrats or middle-ranking politicians—are now reaching the highest offices.
Whether this is justice finally catching up or political score-settling in disguise, one thing is clear: Madhav Nepal will now spend his political twilight not debating ideology or party unity, but defending himself in court against the most serious charges of his life. The damage to his reputation may prove irreversible—no matter how the legal process unfolds.
