A Deeper Look into Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada’s Legacy: Landmark Verdicts That Shaped Nepal’s Supreme Court

February 5, 2025
21 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

KATHMANDU: As Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada retired from Nepal’s Supreme Court on March 8, 2024, after an esteemed tenure of over seven years, his contributions to the country’s legal system are undeniable.

Known for his judicial integrity and profound impact on Nepal’s legal framework, his landmark verdicts will continue to influence the nation’s jurisprudence for years to come.

Since his appointment to the Supreme Court on August 1, 2016, Justice Khatiwada has been widely regarded as a pillar of integrity and a beacon of the judiciary. Known for his unwavering commitment to the rule of law, his verdicts have been recognized for their depth, legal reasoning, and theoretical foundation in resolving complex constitutional issues.

Born in March 1959 in Udayapur, Nepal, Justice Khatiwada’s legal career spans over four decades.

Before joining the Supreme Court, he served as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals (now the High Court) and had an extensive tenure as a judge in the Court of Appeals and District Courts for over 20 years.

The court’s ruling came in response to 30 petitions challenging the dissolution, including one filed by 143 opposition lawmakers demanding Deuba’s appointment.

His judicial journey also included serving as a senior prosecutor (Joint Attorney) at the Office of the Attorney General, where he worked on high-profile cases, including the investigation into the death of the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal and the 2001 Royal Palace Massacre.

Beyond his judicial responsibilities, Justice Khatiwada has been a prominent legal scholar and educator.

He has lectured on constitutional law, criminal justice, and judicial processes at the National Judicial Academy and other academic institutions.

In 2006–2007, he served as General Secretary of the Judges Society of Nepal. His academic credentials include a Bachelor of Laws and a Master’s in Political Science from Tribhuvan University, as well as an LL.M. in Tax Law and Constitutional Law from Punjab University, Chandigarh, India.

He also pursued research on fair trial standards for juvenile justice at the Danish Institute of Human Rights in Denmark.

Justice Khatiwada’s tenure on the Supreme Court has been marked by several landmark decisions that have had a lasting impact on Nepal’s legal and constitutional framework.

His judgments have strengthened judicial independence, clarified constitutional provisions, and reinforced the principles of due process and fair trial.

As he steps down from the bench, Justice Khatiwada leaves behind a judiciary strengthened by his contributions.

His judgments will continue to guide legal discourse, and his commitment to upholding constitutional principles remains an inspiration.

With a career that exemplifies fairness, intellectual rigor, and dedication to justice, Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada stands as one of the most influential figures of his generation in Nepal’s Supreme Court.

His legacy will undoubtedly endure in the annals of Nepal’s judicial history.

Below are some of the landmark verdicts delivered by Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada:

Judicial Shockwave: Supreme Court Reinstates Parliament, Deals Major Blow to PM Oli’s Power Play

In a landmark decision on July 12, 2021, Nepal’s Supreme Court overturned Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s controversial move to dissolve the House of Representatives, ordering President Bidya Devi Bhandari to appoint Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba as the new prime minister within 48 hours.

On May 26, 2022, Nepal’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling halting the government’s decision to construct the $3.45 billion Nijgadh International Airport.

The ruling, issued by a five-member constitutional bench after two weeks of hearings, effectively nullified Oli’s attempt to force snap elections in November and reinstated Parliament, setting the stage for a dramatic political showdown.

The verdict, authored by Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada, also shielded 23 members of Oli’s own party, the UML, from disciplinary action after they defied him by backing Deuba’s claim to the premiership.

The court’s ruling came in response to 30 petitions challenging the dissolution, including one filed by 143 opposition lawmakers demanding Deuba’s appointment.

A Stinging Judicial Rebuke

The constitutional bench—comprising Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana and Justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada, Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, and Mira Khadka—delivered a decisive rebuke to Oli’s actions, calling his claim to the premiership “unconstitutional.”

The ruling mandates that Parliament convene before 5 p.m. on July 18, derailing Oli’s plans to extend his rule through fresh elections.

The Supreme Court’s ruling has reaffirmed the strength of Nepal’s constitutional order at one of the most critical times in its history.

Environmentalists warned that clearing such a vast stretch of forest would have devastating consequences for local ecosystems and climate resilience.

Deuba, a veteran politician and four-time prime minister, had submitted signatures from 149 lawmakers—members of the Nepali Congress, the Maoist Center, and a breakaway faction of Oli’s own UML—proving his parliamentary majority.

In response, Oli countered with a claim of support from 153 lawmakers, relying on party endorsements rather than individual signatures. President Bhandari dismissed both claims as “insufficient” and dissolved Parliament on Oli’s recommendation.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that her decision was unconstitutional, restoring the legislative body and clearing the way for Deuba’s appointment.

Supreme Court Restricts Nijgadh International Airport Project to Prevent Mass Deforestation, Recommends Alternative Site: A Landmark Decision in Environmental Jurisprudence & a Defining Moment in Nepal’s Environmental Governance

On May 26, 2022, Nepal’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling halting the government’s decision to construct the $3.45 billion Nijgadh International Airport.

The verdict prioritized environmental preservation over unchecked development, putting an end to a controversial project that threatened millions of trees and Nepal’s fragile biodiversity.

While the Supreme Court did not rule out the construction of an international airport, it directed the government to identify a more suitable location and ensure that any new project adheres to all mandatory environmental procedures.

The ruling reaffirmed that Nepal’s development trajectory must balance economic progress with ecological responsibility.

It also signaled that future large-scale projects must undergo rigorous environmental and legal scrutiny before moving forward.

The proposed site in Bara district, covering 8,045 hectares, was home to dense forests, rich wildlife, and critical groundwater recharge zones.

The Supreme Court also criticized the procedural flaws in the project’s approval. It found that the government had allowed deforestation and infrastructure development before completing a legally required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) identified 2,450,319 large and medium-sized trees within the construction area.

Environmentalists warned that clearing such a vast stretch of forest would have devastating consequences for local ecosystems and climate resilience.

The government, however, had pushed forward, justifying the project as a national priority infrastructure and an economic necessity.

But the Supreme Court’s decision made it clear: national interest cannot come at the cost of irreparable environmental destruction.

The Judicial Split: Majority and Minority Opinions

The five-member Supreme Court bench was divided on the issue. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada and supported by Justices Prakash Man Singh Raut and Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha, ruled that the Nijgadh project could not proceed at the proposed site.

The judgment was firm: “Destruction of the environment in the name of development cannot be accepted.” It reaffirmed Nepal’s constitutional obligations under the public trust doctrine and the principle of inter-generational equity, which mandates the protection of natural resources for future generations.

Justice Karki recommended that if the government insisted on building the airport at Nijgadh, it must offset deforestation by planting trees elsewhere and adopt stricter environmental management strategies.

The ruling cited global legal trends where courts have increasingly recognized nature’s right to exist.

It reminded the government that Nepal’s own judiciary had set a precedent three decades ago, affirming that the fundamental right to life includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment.

The Supreme Court also criticized the procedural flaws in the project’s approval. It found that the government had allowed deforestation and infrastructure development before completing a legally required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The EIA itself, completed three years after the decision to proceed with the project, failed to fully comply with environmental directives and did not propose alternative measures to minimize ecological damage.

A Case of Judicial Oversight on Environmental Protection

The ruling emphasized that the state is merely a trustee of natural resources and cannot approve projects that significantly harm the environment without proper justification.

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument that it had already invested heavily in the project, stating: “Legal processes cannot be bypassed in the name of sunk costs.”

The minority opinion, written by Justice Hari Krishna Karki with Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma concurring, took a different stance.

While acknowledging the flaws in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the dissenting judges argued that existing laws did not prevent the government from developing a project in a forested area if no alternative site was available.

On February 7, 2024, the Supreme Court of Nepal annulled the decision made by the KP Sharma Oli-led government to allow the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate to relocate its 343-19-12 bigha of land, declaring the move inconsistent with the country’s land laws.

Justice Karki cited international precedents, including the construction of Istanbul Airport in Turkey, where forests were cleared, and the UK Supreme Court’s decision to allow the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

He asserted that Nepal’s government had the right to develop national priority projects, even within forest areas, provided that strong environmental safeguards were in place.

However, even the minority opinion did not entirely favor the government’s approach.

It stated that the EIA’s failure to propose ways to minimize environmental risks was unacceptable.

Justice Karki recommended that if the government insisted on building the airport at Nijgadh, it must offset deforestation by planting trees elsewhere and adopt stricter environmental management strategies.

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Decision

The majority opinion outlined several critical points that ultimately led to the project’s termination:

  • Most of the world’s airports are significantly smaller than the proposed Nijgadh airport, which aimed to cover 8,045 hectares. Many international airports operate effectively within 2,000 hectares or less, raising questions about the need for such an extensive land allocation.
  • Destroying one of Nepal’s last dense forests for the sake of an airport was not justified. The ruling challenged the notion that environmental destruction was a necessity for national development.
  • Provincial rights were ignored. The Supreme Court found that the federal government had overstepped its jurisdiction, ignoring the concerns of the Madhes provincial government, which legally oversees national forests within its territory.
  • The EIA was conducted after project approvals had already been granted. The report failed to provide credible evidence that there was no alternative site for the airport or to propose effective environmental safeguards.
  • The area was a crucial biodiversity zone. The Supreme Court noted that 22 species of endangered flora and 23 mammal species inhabited the proposed construction site. Additionally, the project site was adjacent to Parsa Wildlife Reserve, increasing the risk of habitat destruction.

The Broader Implications for Environmental Law in Nepal

The Supreme Court’s decision was not just about Nijgadh—it set a powerful precedent for future infrastructure projects.

By ruling that development projects must adhere to strict environmental safeguards, the judiciary reinforced its role as a guardian of Nepal’s natural heritage.

The ruling also strengthened public participation in environmental governance. The case had been brought to court by environmental activists and legal experts, including Ranju Hajur Pandey and former secretary Dwarika Nath Dhungel.

Their victory underscored the importance of civic engagement in holding governments accountable for environmental decisions.

For conservationists, the verdict was a historic win. It protected one of Nepal’s last remaining dense forests from large-scale destruction and ensured that the country’s environmental laws are not merely symbolic, but legally enforceable.

The Nijgadh International Airport case will be remembered as a turning point in Nepal’s environmental governance—a moment when the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that no development project is above the law and that no economic ambition can justify the reckless destruction of nature.

The Oli government had engineered a legislative maneuver to facilitate land swaps that would benefit private interest groups through political influence, potentially enabling the estate to exchange its valuable land in Birtamod for lower-priced plots in rural areas.

This was not the first time Nepal’s judiciary had intervened in the Nijgadh project. On December 6, 2019, Supreme Court Justice Tanka Bahadur Moktan had issued a stay order, halting tree felling at the site.

Later, on December 22, 2019, a division bench of Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana and Justice Kumar Regmi upheld the decision, reinforcing judicial scrutiny over the project.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Oli Cabinet’s Controversial Decision on Giri Bandhu Tea Estate Land Swap

On February 7, 2024, the Supreme Court of Nepal annulled the decision made by the KP Sharma Oli-led government to allow the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate to relocate its 343-19-12 bigha of land, declaring the move inconsistent with the country’s land laws.

A constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha and Justices Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada, Prakash Man Singh Raut, Sushma Lata Mathema, and Sapana Pradhan Malla ruled that the April 26, 2021, decision violated Section 12(c) of the Land Act, 1964, which mandates that land exceeding the ceiling should be confiscated by the government. Khatiwada was the main author of the verdict.

In a decisive ruling, the court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the government to manage the tea estate’s land in accordance with legal provisions, ensuring that any swap considers factors such as land area, agricultural capacity, proportionality in exchange, and pricing.

Controversial businessman Deepak Malhotra has been linked to the controversial land swap, allegedly investing large sums to exchange prime land in Birtamod for less valuable plots in Kachanakbal and Jhapa Rural Municipality.

Additionally, the court issued a certiorari order, nullifying the Cabinet’s decision and any subsequent transactions based on it.

The ruling effectively prevents commercial development on the tea estate’s land and maintains the status quo of the property. These issues raise serious questions about land governance, transparency, and the rule of law.

The Oli government had engineered a legislative maneuver to facilitate land swaps that would benefit private interest groups through political influence, potentially enabling the estate to exchange its valuable land in Birtamod for lower-priced plots in rural areas.

The government had approved the lease of the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate land, effectively paving the way for residential plotting at the site.

The Land Act of 1964 imposes strict ceilings on private land ownership, limiting it to 10 bighas in the Terai region, 25 ropanis in Kathmandu Valley, and 70 ropanis in other hilly regions.

Section 10 of the Act grants the government the authority to confiscate any land holdings exceeding these limits.

However, Section 12(e) provides exemptions for land designated for agro-industrial activities, as long as it is used exclusively for that purpose.

The Supreme Court emphasized that any land exceeding the exempted limit must revert to state ownership.

The origins of the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate dispute date back to the Panchayat era when landlord families, such as the Giri brothers and Budhkaran Rajbansi, sought to bypass nationalization by registering their land as a tea estate.

A Gazette notice granted the estate an exemption from land ceilings, provided the land was used for tea cultivation.

However, more recent developments suggest efforts to exploit this exemption for commercial land transactions. The estate previously exchanged 51 bighas in 2004 and was reportedly planning to swap the remaining land.

Issuing a mandamus order on November 1, 2023, a full bench led by Acting Chief Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada ruled that the government’s decision to recommend Dhakal’s amnesty was legally and constitutionally flawed.

Controversial businessman Deepak Malhotra has been linked to the controversial land swap, allegedly investing large sums to exchange prime land in Birtamod for less valuable plots in Kachanakbal and Jhapa Rural Municipality.

Petitioners argued that businesses exceeding land limits should return surplus land to the state, rather than relocating or selling it.

Supreme Court Sets Precedent for Future Land Swaps

The Supreme Court set a seven-point standard for land swaps by commercial entities, mandating:

  1. A detailed land analysis before approval.
  2. Swapped land must have comparable agricultural productivity.
  3. A feasibility study on the new location’s potential.
  4. Technical assessments to determine the land’s capacity.
  5. Consideration of the prevailing land values in both locations.
  6. Land swaps must not affect employment levels at the estate.
  7. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) before granting approval.

The ruling comes after reports that Giri Bandhu Tea Estate planned to swap its Birtamod land—valued at NPR 200 million per bigha—for much less expensive land in Prithvinagar, Jhapa.

Following the verdict, Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balen Shah publicly warned CPN-UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli against covering up what he termed the “Rs. 100 billion Giri Bandhu Tea Estate land scam.”

With the court’s decision, any further attempts to swap the estate’s land must comply with strict legal and procedural safeguards, marking a significant step toward greater transparency in Nepal’s land governance.

Supreme Court Overturns Presidential Pardon of Convicted Murderer Yograj Dhakal ‘Regal’, Mandates Victim Consent in Future Cases

The Supreme Court of Nepal has annulled the presidential pardon granted to Yograj Dhakal, alias Regal, a convicted murderer with ties to the ruling Nepali Congress.

A full bench of Justices Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada, Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, and Anil Kumar Sinha ruled in favor of the petition, overturning his appointment.

Issuing a mandamus order on November 1, 2023, a full bench led by Acting Chief Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada ruled that the government’s decision to recommend Dhakal’s amnesty was legally and constitutionally flawed.

The court also established a precedent requiring victim consent before granting pardons in similar cases, effectively curbing political impunity.

The verdict came in response to a writ petition filed by Bharati Sherpa, the widow of Chetan Manandhar, whom Dhakal murdered in cold blood at a hotel in Nepalgunj on July 13, 2015.

Dhakal, then a gangster and president of Tarun Dal Banke-3, had been sentenced to life imprisonment for orchestrating the killing.

He had initially evaded arrest but later surrendered after police intensified crackdowns on criminal groups.

Despite his conviction, he was among 670 convicts granted clemency on Constitution Day, September 20, 2023, under presidential authority, following a government recommendation.

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant check on the executive’s discretionary power, reinforcing the need for judicial scrutiny in cases involving serious crimes.

Supreme Court Nullifies Karki’s Appointment, Setting a Precedent for Constitutional Integrity

On January 8, 2017, in a landmark ruling, Nepal’s Supreme Court disqualified Lok Man Singh Karki from holding the position of Chief of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), effectively removing him from office.

The court found that Karki did not meet the constitutional qualifications required for the role, marking the end of a controversial tenure at the country’s top anti-corruption body.

Karki, appointed in May 2013 by then-Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi’s interim council of ministers for a six-year term, faced legal challenges from advocate Om Prakash Aryal, who argued that Karki lacked the necessary experience and high moral character mandated by the Interim Constitution in effect at the time of his appointment.

A constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana and Justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Harikrishna Karki, and Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada issued the verdict in response to a writ petition filed by advocate Bishnu Prasad Ghimire.

A full bench of Justices Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada, Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, and Anil Kumar Sinha ruled in favor of the petition, overturning his appointment.

The ruling cited Karki’s role in suppressing the 2006 People’s Movement, as documented by a judicial commission led by former Justice Krishna Jung Rayamajhi, as evidence of his failure to meet the required ethical standards.

Additionally, the court concluded that his experience in civil service and fields such as accounting, revenue, engineering, law, and development was insufficient for the position.

His tenure in the palace, the court ruled, could not be counted toward the required experience.

“All activities related to his appointment—including the Constitutional Council’s May 5, 2013 decision to recommend him, his formal appointment by the President on May 8, and the oath administered by the Chief Justice—are hereby quashed,” the court stated, issuing a mandamus order for the appointment of a qualified individual to the post.

The decision marks a reversal of a 2014 division bench ruling that had upheld Karki’s appointment.

However, in September 2016, another division bench led by then-Chief Justice Sushila Karki had raised concerns over whether Karki’s past service disqualified him under constitutional provisions requiring high moral character.

The court’s latest ruling, responding to Aryal’s renewed petition, follows an earlier directive in August 2016 from Justices Deepak Karki, Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha, and Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada, which had ordered authorities to provide documentation related to Karki’s appointment and past government inquiries into his conduct.

The verdict sets a strong precedent for future appointments to Nepal’s constitutional bodies, reinforcing the necessity of adhering to constitutional qualifications and ethical standards in public office.

Supreme Court Bans CIAA’s Sting Operations, Declares Them Unconstitutional

On April 21, 2021, in a historic ruling, Nepal’s Supreme Court declared that the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) cannot conduct sting operations to arrest bribery suspects, ruling the practice unconstitutional and inconsistent with the principles of criminal justice.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation sets a precedent for law enforcement agencies, emphasizing that legal and constitutional provisions must be strictly followed in all investigative processes.

A constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana and Justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Harikrishna Karki, and Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada issued the verdict in response to a writ petition filed by advocate Bishnu Prasad Ghimire.

The ruling nullifies Clause 30 of the CIAA Regulations, 2059 BS, which had granted the anti-corruption body the authority to use its own funds to entrap officials suspected of accepting bribes.

Violation of Constitutional and Legal Principles

The Supreme Court ruled that the provision allowing sting operations contradicts Article 20(9) of the Constitution, which ensures the right to a fair trial, and Article 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2059 BS.

The bench emphasized that while the fight against corruption remains a national priority, investigative agencies must adhere to due process and legal principles while carrying out their duties.

The ruling underscores that sting operations, as practiced by the CIAA, could potentially lead to arbitrary actions and wrongful convictions.

“The provision encouraged investigating officers to act beyond their constitutional mandate, which could result in legal and ethical violations,” the bench noted in its decision.

The court further stated that investigative bodies must operate within the framework of established laws and cannot resort to methods that could compromise an individual’s right to a fair trial.

Justice Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada, the principal author of the verdict, elaborated that the concept of sting operations, as conducted by the CIAA, was inconsistent with accepted principles of criminal justice, including due process, judicial recognition of evidence gathering, and the doctrine of proportionality.

He highlighted that the legal system must ensure justice without compromising fundamental rights.

The verdict, however, does not hinder the CIAA’s overall mandate to combat corruption. Instead, it reinforces the importance of adhering to legal methods and constitutional safeguards while investigating bribery and corruption cases.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant milestone in Nepal’s judicial history, reinforcing the importance of constitutional principles while ensuring that corruption investigations remain within the framework of due process and legal integrity.

The court’s ruling mandates the use of alternative legal measures to ensure that corruption cases are prosecuted effectively while upholding the principles of fairness and justice.

Legal experts view this ruling as a landmark decision that strengthens constitutional protections while reaffirming the importance of procedural integrity in criminal investigations.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation sets a precedent for law enforcement agencies, emphasizing that legal and constitutional provisions must be strictly followed in all investigative processes.

The decision also reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights. By barring the use of sting operations, the court has clarified that law enforcement cannot employ investigative tactics that may infringe upon citizens’ rights or contradict constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant milestone in Nepal’s judicial history, reinforcing the importance of constitutional principles while ensuring that corruption investigations remain within the framework of due process and legal integrity.

(Note: This content has utilized Artificial Intelligence (AI) as part of Nepal News’ innovative approach to integrating new technologies in content while maintaining editorial oversight.)

Also Read:

https://nepalnews.com/s/long-reads/here-are-some-landmark-verdicts-that-shaped-former-chief-justice-kalyan-shresthas-legacy-in-nepals-judiciary/