KATHMANDU: In a major development, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) recently questioned former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal regarding alleged irregularities in a land deal involving Patanjali Yogpeeth. About three weeks ago, Madhav Kumar Nepal appeared at the CIAA office in Tangal to provide his statement, having initially resisted the summons by claiming that Cabinet decisions are beyond the commission’s jurisdiction.

The questioning followed mounting pressure and warnings from the CIAA, eventually prompting Nepal to comply. This marks a rare instance of a former head of government being interrogated in connection with decisions taken during his premiership over a decade and half ago. This explainer unpacks the multiple facets of the Patanjali Yogpeeth land controversy, including legal violations, political involvement, and the recent questioning of former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal by the CIAA.

What is the Patanjali land deal in Nepal, and why is it controversial?

The controversy stems from a February 1, 2010, Cabinet decision made during Madhav Kumar Nepal’s premiership, which granted Patanjali Yogpeeth permission to purchase 815 ropani of land in Kavre. Patanjali, known for promoting Ayurvedic medicine in India, had registered a company in Nepal in 2007 (2064 B.S.) to develop a similar venture, including a hospital and herbal farm. Under normal law, companies cannot hold such large amounts of land due to Nepal’s land ceiling laws. However, the Cabinet granted Patanjali a special exemption under the condition that the land would be used solely for medicinal and educational purposes.

Soon after purchasing the land, Patanjali began selling portions of it—some within months of the original acquisition. This violated the Land Act of 1964 (2021 B.S.), which explicitly bans the sale of land acquired through such exemptions. Additionally, the Cabinet’s decision had stipulated that any proceeds from the land sale must be reinvested into new land purchases for the same purpose. The investigation found this condition was ignored, further complicating the matter. These events raised red flags about whether the original Cabinet decision was misused or whether Patanjali exploited a legal loophole with tacit political approval.

Who are the main figures involved in the investigation?

The central figure is former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who chaired the Cabinet that approved the land exemption for Patanjali in 2010. Then Land Reform Minister Dambar Bahadur Shrestha is another key player; a CIAA-discovered document reveals he approved the land sale citing a “verbal directive” from Nepal. Former Land Reform Secretary Chhabiraj Panta has also been questioned by the CIAA in connection to the same document.

On the investigative side, the CIAA is now under the leadership of Chief Commissioner Prem Kumar Rai. During the initial stages of the revived probe, a departmental study panel was formed under Lok Bahadur Bhandari, Chief of the Bhaktapur Land Revenue Office. The panel also included officials Bed Prasad Khatri and Yadunath Acharya. This panel’s findings—confirming that land sales occurred in violation of the Cabinet’s conditions—prompted further action.

Notably, Madhav Nepal had previously been questioned by the CIAA during Nabin Kumar Ghimire’s tenure as CIAA chief in a separate case: the Lalita Niwas land scam. His reaction to this latest probe has been defensive, describing it as politically motivated. However, the CIAA has assured confidentiality and continued its inquiries.

What prompted the CIAA to question former PM Madhav Kumar Nepal?

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) questioned former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal in connection with a land deal involving Patanjali Yogpeeth, an Indian organization. In 2010 (2066 B.S.), while Nepal was in office, his Cabinet granted Patanjali permission to purchase 815 ropani of land in Kavre under a land ceiling exemption. The land was supposedly for building an Ayurvedic hospital and cultivating medicinal herbs. However, the organization began selling portions of the land within months—violating the Land Act of 1964, which prohibits resale of land acquired through such exemptions.

Following a recent formal complaint, the CIAA revived the case after nearly 15 years and began investigating whether the Cabinet decision, especially Nepal’s alleged verbal directive to approve the land sale, was an abuse of power. A document found by the CIAA reportedly shows then Land Reform Minister Dambar Bahadur Shrestha approving the land sale on the basis of a “verbal directive” from Nepal. This raised serious concerns over possible misuse of authority. After initial resistance, Nepal eventually agreed to give a statement at the CIAA office, expressing concerns the case was politically motivated.

What legal violations are being investigated in the Patanjali land deal?

The investigation revolves around potential violations of the Land Act of 1964 (2021 B.S.), which regulates land ownership and prohibits resale of land acquired under ceiling exemptions for productive or public-use purposes. Patanjali was allowed to purchase 815 ropani in Kavre with the understanding that the land would be used for an Ayurvedic hospital and herb farming. However, the company began selling parts of the land within months, which is a direct breach of the Act.

Furthermore, the Cabinet decision had an attached condition: any revenue from land sales must be used to purchase replacement land for the same purpose. Investigations found that no such land was bought, and the money remained unused. Another major issue is the process itself—CIAA documents show that then Minister Dambar Bahadur Shrestha approved the sale based on a “verbal directive” from Prime Minister Nepal, bypassing formal legal procedures. This could constitute abuse of authority under Nepal’s anti-corruption laws. Moreover, if it is proven that the Cabinet knowingly facilitated the sale of land intended for public welfare, it could trigger further legal action against senior officials involved.

Why did the CIAA previously avoid probing Cabinet decisions?

Historically, the CIAA (Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority) maintained that Cabinet decisions fall outside its jurisdiction, reasoning that political decisions taken collectively in a Cabinet are immune from corruption prosecution unless there’s direct criminal misconduct. This interpretation was especially prominent during earlier investigations, such as the 2019 Lalita Niwas land scam, where statements were taken from Madhav Nepal and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, but no charges were filed, citing jurisdictional limitations.

However, this stance has come under legal and public scrutiny. A case challenging the CIAA’s inability to investigate Cabinet decisions is now under review by the Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled soon. The court may set a precedent that redefines the CIAA’s mandate regarding political decisions. In the Patanjali case, the revival of the probe suggests a shift in interpretation—possibly due to mounting public pressure and documented irregularities.

The presence of a paper trail, such as the “verbal directive” from Nepal cited in a formal government document, has made it harder to dismiss the matter as a mere policy decision. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of broader CIAA jurisdiction, it could open the floodgates for investigations into many past political decisions.

How did Madhav Nepal respond to the CIAA’s summons and questioning?

Madhav Kumar Nepal initially resisted the CIAA’s request for questioning. He reportedly claimed that the CIAA has no authority to investigate Cabinet decisions, a position consistent with earlier legal interpretations. When first approached by CIAA officers, Nepal refused to appear at their office, suggesting that he could be questioned at his residence, citing past precedent from the Lalita Niwas case. However, the CIAA refused to accommodate this unless he provided a written health-related justification.

They also warned that if Nepal was later seen at public events after claiming incapacity, it would raise questions. Under mounting pressure, and facing the possibility of a public notice issued through the media and Parliament Secretariat, Nepal eventually agreed to appear at the CIAA office in Tangal and provide his statement.

During the questioning, he expressed concerns that the investigation was politically motivated, designed to damage his public image. The CIAA responded by assuring him of complete confidentiality and discretion. The questioning process was conducted with tight security and secrecy, indicating the sensitivity of the case. Nepal’s reaction reflects the high stakes involved, not only legally but also in terms of political reputation.

What were the findings of the CIAA-commissioned land study panel?

The Department of Land Management and Archives, under CIAA instruction, formed a study panel to analyze the Patanjali land deal. The panel was led by Lok Bahadur Bhandari, Chief of the Bhaktapur Land Revenue Office, and included Bed Prasad Khatiwada and Yadunath Acharya as members. Their report found that about 88 ropani of land in Kavre, originally purchased under the land ceiling exemption, was later sold by Patanjali, violating both the Land Act of 1964 and the specific conditions of the Cabinet decision.

The panel uncovered that some of this land had been purchased in fiscal year 2065/66 and sold almost immediately in the following fiscal year. It also noted that some purchases had been made since 2064 B.S. (2007). Importantly, the Cabinet condition mandating that any proceeds from such land sales be reinvested into acquiring new land was not followed. The revenue from sales remained unused, contradicting the stated public-purpose objectives. This independent verification by land officials added weight to the CIAA’s inquiry and likely influenced the decision to question top political figures, including former PM Madhav Nepal.

How does the Patanjali case relate to the Lalita Niwas land scam?

Both the Patanjali land deal and the Lalita Niwas land scam involve controversial Cabinet-level decisions during Madhav Kumar Nepal’s tenure as Prime Minister and raise similar legal questions about the limits of executive authority. In the Lalita Niwas case, land belonging to the government was transferred to private individuals through a series of political and bureaucratic manipulations.

The CIAA investigated the matter but refrained from charging former Prime Ministers Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai, arguing it lacked jurisdiction over Cabinet decisions. This precedent was challenged in court and is now under judicial review. The Patanjali case echoes many of the same concerns: a government decision involving land concessions, questionable ministerial approvals, and subsequent violations of land laws.

Both cases also involve verbal directives from the Prime Minister being cited in official documents—raising questions about informal governance practices. Additionally, both scandals saw Nepal resisting direct summons but eventually cooperating under pressure. These similarities suggest a broader pattern of alleged abuse of Cabinet authority in land-related decisions, and may influence how future cases—and the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling—reshape anti-corruption efforts in Nepal.

What role did Patanjali Yogpeeth play in the controversy?

Patanjali Yogpeeth, an Indian-based organization headed by Baba Ramdev, played a central role in initiating the land controversy. In 2064 B.S. (2007), it registered a company in Nepal with the declared aim of establishing an Ayurvedic college, hospital, and herbal farm. Since acquiring 815 ropani exceeded the legal land ceiling, it requested a special exemption, which was granted by the Madhav Nepal-led Cabinet in 2066 B.S. (2010).

Although Patanjali initially acquired around 600 ropani, the organization began selling portions of the land within months, violating both the exemption’s terms and the Land Act of 1964. The sales undermined the stated purpose of the project and raised questions about whether Patanjali had commercial intentions all along.

Additionally, Cabinet conditions stipulated that proceeds from any land sales be reinvested in buying replacement land, but the investigation found this did not happen. While Patanjali has not yet responded publicly to the renewed investigation, its role in selling protected land without following legal protocols has drawn scrutiny. The company’s influence in Nepal and its connections to powerful Indian business and political circles add a layer of diplomatic sensitivity to the case.

What are the broader political and legal implications of this investigation?

The investigation into the Patanjali land deal carries significant political and legal ramifications. Legally, it could set a precedent on whether the CIAA has the authority to investigate Cabinet decisions, a question that’s under Supreme Court review. A ruling expanding CIAA jurisdiction could reshape the accountability landscape, making current and former Prime Ministers vulnerable to prosecution for misuse of executive powers.

Politically, the case puts pressure on major figures like Madhav Nepal, once a dominant force in left-wing politics. It may also influence public perceptions ahead of elections, especially regarding corruption and elite impunity. Moreover, the case highlights weaknesses in Nepal’s institutional safeguards, where “verbal directives” from top officials are treated as policy, bypassing formal accountability.

For parties like the CPN (Unified Socialist), this could affect credibility, especially among voters disillusioned by elite collusion. Finally, it touches on Nepal-India relations, since Patanjali is a high-profile Indian entity. If the case escalates, it may complicate bilateral dealings, particularly in investment and land policy. In short, the probe could influence not just the fate of one land deal but the future of governance, legal interpretation, and anti-corruption enforcement in Nepal.