KATHMANDU: On June 14, 2024, after more than four decades in Nepal’s judiciary, Supreme Court Justice Dr. Anand Mohan Bhattarai retired, but his landmark verdicts will remain significant for generations to come.
Known for his expertise in constitutional, criminal, and environmental law, Bhattarai’s tenure was marked by bold, precedent-setting decisions and an unwavering commitment to justice and integrity.
For 43 years, he stood as a principled and meticulous judge, unshaken by political and legal challenges. He never hesitated to dissent when necessary, always prioritizing justice over convenience.
His retirement at the mandatory age of 65 didn’t go unnoticed. India’s Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant (D.Y.) Chandrachud sent a personal message, praising Bhattarai’s contributions to environmental law and judicial thought.
It is the first time a senior Nepali judge has received such recognition from a foreign Chief Justice—a rare moment that highlights Bhattarai’s influence beyond Nepal’s borders.
A fearless voice in the judiciary, Bhattarai played a key role in some of Nepal’s most significant legal battles.
He was part of the constitutional bench that removed then-Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli from power, a ruling that reinforced Nepal’s democratic framework.
By upholding tax enforcement against Ncell and Axiata, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message about financial accountability, making it clear that Nepal will not tolerate corporate tax evasion.
His decisions often emphasized human rights, gender equality, and environmental protection, setting legal benchmarks that continue to shape Nepal’s legal landscape.
During his tenure at Nepal’s Supreme Court, Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai delivered hundreds of verdicts that have profoundly shaped the country’s legal landscape.
His landmark rulings have addressed critical issues ranging from environmental protection and human rights to constitutional interpretation and governance.
Bhattarai’s judicial philosophy reflects a steadfast commitment to upholding the rule of law, advancing environmental justice, and ensuring the rights of marginalized communities.
His decisions have not only set legal precedents but also reinforced the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democracy and social justice in Nepal.
Born on June 15, 1959, in Kaski, Bhattarai’s journey from a literature enthusiast to a revered Supreme Court Justice is a testament to his unwavering commitment to justice and intellectual rigor.
Bhattarai’s judicial career commenced in 1980, serving in various capacities across Nepal’s legal system.
His roles ranged from officer positions in different courts to Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nepal (1992–1994). He served as a District Judge in Kathmandu, Syangja, Achham, Manang, and Kapilvastu between 1994 and 2006.
Elevated to the Court of Appeal in 2006, he later became its Chief Judge in Biratnagar and Patan (2014–2016) before his appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal on August 1, 2016, a position he held until June 14, 2024.
Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai was appointed to Nepal’s Supreme Court on August 1, 2016, in a move that signaled a push for judicial integrity and merit-based selection.
Then-Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha, determined to restore the court’s credibility, bypassed controversial senior judges and instead elevated junior judges, including Bhattarai, from the high court.
Bhattarai’s appointment came after a fiercely contested selection process, but Shrestha stood by his choice—one that would ultimately prove aligned with his vision for an independent and principled judiciary.
In April 2016, Shrestha appointed 11 justices to the Supreme Court, balancing their competencies with seniority considerations.
Bhattarai, following in Shrestha’s footsteps, would go on to cement his own legacy with landmark rulings that reshaped Nepal’s legal landscape.
Throughout his tenure, Justice Bhattarai delivered judgments that have significantly influenced Nepalese jurisprudence.
His decisions have been pivotal in areas such as environmental conservation, community rights, gender justice, and LGBTQ+ rights.
Notably, two of his judgments were featured in Landmark Judgments on Violence Against Women and Children from South Asia, underscoring his commitment to human rights and social justice.
Nepal News has selected some of his most notable verdicts, highlighting their impact on Nepal’s legal and social framework.
These decisions have set important precedents, reinforcing judicial independence and accountability in Nepal’s evolving democracy. Here are some of the landmark verdicts selected by Nepal News:
Landmark Verdict on Ncell’s Capital Gains Tax: A Precedent for Corporate Taxation:
In a landmark ruling issued on April 9, 2019, the Supreme Court of Nepal ordered Ncell and its majority shareholder, Axiata, to pay the outstanding capital gains tax within three months.
The verdict, authored by Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai, has significant implications for corporate taxation and foreign investment in Nepal.
The court’s decision explicitly states that Ncell is liable for capital gains tax in Nepal, even though the company’s shares were sold by Swedish-Finnish firm TeliaSonera to Malaysian company Axiata.
The ruling is based on the principle that any company operating within Nepal’s jurisdiction must fulfill its tax obligations, regardless of whether the transaction took place outside the country.
The judgment reinforces the government’s authority to enforce tax laws on multinational corporations engaged in business activities within Nepal.
To ensure compliance, the Supreme Court directed the government to take necessary measures to prevent Ncell from distributing dividends or selling any portion of its shares until the due tax is fully paid.
This serves as a safeguard against any attempt to evade financial responsibilities before settling the legal tax obligations.
The case surrounding Ncell’s capital gains tax has been a subject of intense debate and legal scrutiny in Nepal. The controversy arose when TeliaSonera sold its 80% stake in Ncell to Axiata in April 2015 for $1.03 billion (over Rs 105 billion).
Questions were raised about whether the Nepal government could collect the appropriate tax from the transaction.
Various legal and political discussions ensued, with differing opinions on whether Ncell, as a subsidiary of Axiata, should be held accountable for capital gains tax.
The issue gained prominence when Dwarika Nath Dhungel filed a petition demanding that Ncell and Axiata be held responsible for the tax liability.
In response, the Supreme Court’s extended full bench—headed by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana and including Justices Meera Khadka, Bishwambhar Shrestha, Anand Mohan Bhattarai, and Tanka Moktan—issued a mandamus ruling, explicitly stating that Ncell must pay the tax.
The verdict also dismissed petitions filed by Ncell and Devendra Prasad Nhuchhe (on behalf of Reynolds Holding), who argued that the Nepal government had no authority to impose capital gains tax on the sale.
The Large Taxpayers Office (LTO) had determined that Ncell owed Rs 60.71 billion in capital gains tax, including fines, as of June 17, 2017.
The original tax liability was Rs 35.91 billion, but penalties and interest increased the total amount.
Although capital gains tax is generally paid by the entity that profits from the sale, TeliaSonera had already exited Nepal, leaving Ncell to bear the responsibility.
Under mounting pressure, Ncell deposited Rs 23.57 billion in two installments toward its tax obligations.
The company initially paid Rs 9.97 billion in May 2016, based on its own calculations, and later deposited an additional Rs 13.60 billion on June 4, 2017, following widespread public criticism.
Despite these payments, the Supreme Court has now ordered the full amount to be recovered within three months.
With the Supreme Court’s final verdict, the issue has been decisively settled in favor of tax enforcement, reinforcing the government’s stance on corporate accountability.
Justice Bhattarai’s ruling sets a significant precedent for future taxation cases involving foreign investments and multinational corporations in Nepal.
Although the government had removed the provision regarding Chure’s excavation before the verdict, the Court issued a preventive order prohibiting the export of stone, gravel, and sand from any part of Nepal until legislation was enacted in line with the constitutional mandate for environmental protection.
The ruling ensures that multinational corporations operating in Nepal cannot evade tax obligations through offshore transactions and strengthens Nepal’s legal framework for corporate taxation.
This decision is expected to influence how foreign investors approach business operations in Nepal, emphasizing the need for compliance with the country’s tax laws.
By upholding tax enforcement against Ncell and Axiata, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message about financial accountability, making it clear that Nepal will not tolerate corporate tax evasion.
The ruling is a major victory for tax justice and financial transparency in the country.
Declares Chure Destruction as ‘Ecocide,’ Bans Sand and Stone Exports:
On April 20, 2022, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal issued a landmark ruling on the excavation of the Chure range, a fragile ecological zone covering 12.8% of Nepal’s land area and home to 14% of its population.
The region is home to rich biodiversity, national parks, and wildlife corridors and serves as a critical watershed for the Madesh plains.
The Chure region faces severe environmental threats due to illegal logging, unsustainable land use, and uncontrolled quarrying of sand and stones.
These activities contribute to groundwater depletion, siltation, and increased flood risks in the Madesh plains, directly affecting millions of people.
This verdict, authored by Justice Dr. Anand Mohan Bhattarai, underscored the urgency of state intervention to protect the Chure from environmental degradation.
The Constitutional Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Deepak Kumar Karki, alongside Justices Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada, Anil Kumar Sinha, Prakash Man Singh Raut, and Anand Mohan Bhattarai, delivered the ruling in response to multiple writ petitions challenging the Budget draft for the fiscal year 2021/22.
The budget had proposed large-scale extraction and export of riverine materials, including stone, gravel, and sand, to boost national revenue.
Petitioners argued that this would cause irreparable damage to biodiversity, threaten protected wildlife, and lead to flooding and desertification in the Terai.
On December 19, 2023, a division bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal, led by Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai and Justice Binod Sharma, issued a landmark verdict directing the removal of settlements encroaching on the Bagmati River and its tributaries.
They contended that the policy violated Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment, and disregarded the state’s environmental protection obligations.
The Supreme Court upheld the petitioners’ claims, recognizing the severe environmental risks posed by large-scale excavation.
Although the government had removed the provision regarding Chure’s excavation before the verdict, the Court issued a preventive order prohibiting the export of stone, gravel, and sand from any part of Nepal until legislation was enacted in line with the constitutional mandate for environmental protection.
The ruling clarified that while the executive branch has authority over natural resource management, it cannot exercise this power recklessly at the cost of Nepal’s ecological balance.
A key highlight of the judgment was its recognition of ‘ecocide’—defined by an independent expert panel as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe, widespread, or long-term environmental damage.”
The Court examined the Chure excavation plan against this definition and deemed the project an act of ecocide.
It declared that economic benefits cannot justify environmental destruction, reinforcing Nepal’s constitutional commitment to sustainable development.
The verdict also emphasized core environmental principles, including the precautionary principle and environmentally sustainable development.
The Court stressed that scientific assessments, such as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), must be conducted with utmost accuracy and warned of legal action against those deliberately falsifying EIAs.
It further called on the government to recognize Nepal’s growing environmental challenges due to climate change and to adopt a long-term conservation approach rather than viewing the Chure solely as an economic resource.
By affirming environmental sustainability as the “most fundamental principle” of Nepal’s Constitution, the ruling set a powerful legal precedent.
The government had decided to prohibit construction within 20 meters of the Bagmati, Bishnumati, and Manohara rivers, and 4-20 meters for smaller rivulets.
It reinforced that policymakers, scientists, and the government must prioritize ecological preservation in all development and economic activities.
Housing Rights vs. Encroachment: Justice Bhattarai’s Verdict Redefines Riverbank Policy:
On December 19, 2023, a division bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal, led by Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai and Justice Binod Sharma, issued a landmark verdict directing the removal of settlements encroaching on the Bagmati River and its tributaries.
The ruling reinforced that while no one has the right to occupy public land illegally, the state must provide alternative housing for genuine landless squatters in line with constitutional guarantees.
The full text of the verdict was made public in August 2024. However, the government filed a review petition in the second week of September 2024 seeking to vacate the riverbank encroachment ruling.
The verdict, authored by Justice Bhattarai, reaffirmed Article 37(1) of Nepal’s Constitution, which ensures the right to appropriate housing.
Recognizing the complexity of the issue, the court ordered the government to relocate verified squatters to government-built apartments in Ichangu Narayan or other designated settlements.
Additionally, it mandated a transparent identification process to distinguish genuine squatters from those unlawfully occupying land for commercial or personal gain.
Beyond addressing housing rights, the Supreme Court’s ruling expanded no-construction zones along Kathmandu Valley’s major rivers, marking a historic conservation milestone.
The verdict, issued after 13 years of deliberation, imposed an additional 20-meter buffer along riverbanks, prohibiting construction except for parks and playgrounds. This directive aims to curb pollution, prevent encroachment, and restore river ecosystems.
While environmentalists hailed the decision as a crucial step toward protecting rivers like the Bagmati, Bishnumati, and Hanumante, the government, under local political pressure, has sought a review.
Critics argue that the ruling could result in mass displacement and economic fallout.
Despite the controversy, Nepal’s highest court has positioned itself as the final battleground for environmental justice, balancing conservation with the right to housing and sustainable urban development.
The verdict gained renewed relevance following the severe floods that began on September 26, which heavily impacted several districts in eastern Nepal, particularly those adjacent to Kathmandu and the Bagmati River.
Over three dozen people lost their lives in the Kathmandu Valley, and widespread destruction occurred along the riverbanks due to encroachment and unregulated settlements.
Kathmandu Valley remains highly vulnerable to flooding due to rapid encroachment in the floodplains of the Bagmati River.
In response, Justice Bhattarai’s bench directed Nepal Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs to execute the sentence without delay. The order became a critical test of Nepal’s legal system, as Dhungel had long been shielded by political protection.
The floods caused significant property damage and displacement along the river and its tributaries.
However, political considerations and electoral interests have prevented the government from implementing the Supreme Court’s verdict. Although the review petition was registered, the process has yet to begin.
Previously, a Cabinet meeting on November 16, 2008, had declared a 20-meter buffer zone along major rivers in Kathmandu Valley.
The government had decided to prohibit construction within 20 meters of the Bagmati, Bishnumati, and Manohara rivers, and 4-20 meters for smaller rivulets.
However, this policy was never enforced. The Supreme Court’s ruling on December 18, 2022, further extended this restriction to 40 meters, reinforcing the need for strict land-use regulations to prevent future disasters.
Justice Bhattarai’s Bench Orders Arrest of Convicted Murderer Bal Krishna Dhungel:
On April 14, 2017, a single bench of Justice Ananda Mohan Bhattarai issued an order directing the Inspector General of Nepal Police to arrest Bal Krishna Dhungel of the CPN (Maoist Centre) and place him behind bars within a week.
The ruling reinforced judicial independence and reaffirmed that no individual, regardless of political influence, is above the law.
Dhungel was convicted for the 1998 murder of Ujjan Kumar Shrestha in Okhaldhunga.
The District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, but the Rajbiraj Appellate Court overturned the verdict in 2006.
However, the Supreme Court reinstated his life sentence with property seizure on January 3, 2010.
Despite this final ruling, Dhungel remained free, openly engaging in political activities due to his ties with the ruling Maoist party.
Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi filed a writ against IGP Prakash Aryal on April 12, 2017, for failing to enforce the Supreme Court’s verdict to arrest murder convict Bal Krishna Dhungel.
On October 31, 2017, the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police arrested Maoist leader Dhungel, who had been convicted of murdering Ujjan Kumar Shrestha of Okhaldhunga.
Despite the court’s ruling, political protectionism had prevented his arrest for years, with political parties shielding their leaders and followers from legal consequences. The Supreme Court’s verdict dealt a significant blow to impunity.
Given the nature of COVID-19 as a public health crisis, they contended that the government must bear the cost of testing and treatment, ensuring that no citizen is deprived of medical care due to financial constraints.
Maoist cadres had also killed Ganesh Kumar on September 24, 2012, accusing him of filing a complaint at the District Police Office. Dhungel was convicted of murder by the Okhaldhunga District Court in 2004.
In November 2011, the Baburam Bhattarai-led government recommended presidential clemency for Dhungel, but the court rejected the request.
The case took a new turn when Tripathi filed a contempt of court petition, alleging that Dhungel had issued threats against Chief Justice Sushila Karki and former Chief Justices Kalyan Shrestha and Khil Raj Regmi.
The petition argued that his defiance of the Supreme Court’s verdict and intimidation of top judicial officials constituted a direct challenge to the rule of law.
In response, Justice Bhattarai’s bench directed Nepal Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs to execute the sentence without delay. The order became a critical test of Nepal’s legal system, as Dhungel had long been shielded by political protection.
The case had been a point of intense debate, with Maoist leaders repeatedly pushing for presidential clemency, claiming that Dhungel’s conviction was a political issue linked to the insurgency.
However, the court upheld that the crime was a premeditated murder, not a war-related act, making it ineligible for political amnesty.
Justice Bhattarai’s ruling not only ensured that Dhungel would be held accountable but also sent a strong message about judicial authority.
It reaffirmed that court decisions must be implemented without political interference and set a crucial precedent for future cases involving powerful individuals.
Bhattarai Bench Issues Landmark Ruling on Free COVID-19 Testing and Treatment:
On October 14, 2020, in a significant ruling that reinforces the fundamental right to health, the Supreme Court of Nepal directed the government to ensure free PCR tests and COVID-19 treatment for all citizens, including those requiring tests for visa purposes.
On February 20, 2018, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Nepal, through a joint bench of Justices Ananda Mohan Bhattarai and Tanka Bahadur Moktan, directed the Department of Immigration to grant a Non-Tourist Visa to an American national married to a Nepali citizen in a same-sex marriage.
The verdict, issued by a division bench of Justices Ananda Mohan Bhattarai and Tanka Bahadur Moktan, underscores the state’s constitutional duty to provide essential healthcare without discrimination.
The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by advocates Lokendra Oli and Keshar Jung KC, who argued that access to emergency healthcare services is a fundamental right.
Given the nature of COVID-19 as a public health crisis, they contended that the government must bear the cost of testing and treatment, ensuring that no citizen is deprived of medical care due to financial constraints.
In its decision, the court strongly criticized the government’s previous policy of charging individuals for PCR tests and restricting free testing to only symptomatic cases.
The justices emphasized that the virus does not discriminate between symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers, and denying tests to those without symptoms not only violates the right to health but also increases the risk of unchecked community transmission.
“Nobody undergoes a COVID-19 test out of desire; they do so out of compulsion,” the ruling stated, highlighting the essential nature of widespread testing.
The verdict also addressed systemic shortcomings, acknowledging the difficulties faced by citizens due to long delays and bureaucratic inefficiencies in accessing PCR tests.
While the court allowed for the possibility of scheduling mechanisms, it made it clear that turning individuals away or directing them to private laboratories at their own expense is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
The ruling further underscored that private healthcare institutions are equally bound by constitutional mandates and cannot refuse service on financial grounds. Should they do so, the government is obligated to intervene and enforce compliance.
Beyond immediate concerns, the court also called upon the government to develop a more comprehensive and equitable public health policy, ensuring that no citizen is denied access to life-saving medical services.
On November 15, 2022, in a significant legal intervention, the Supreme Court of Nepal, under the single bench of Justice Dr. Anand Mohan Bhattarai, issued an interim order halting the Election Commission’s (EC) decision to remove LGBTIQ+ candidates from the proportional representation (PR) list for the November 20 elections.
The decision reaffirms the judiciary’s role in holding the state accountable for safeguarding public health and protecting the constitutional rights of all Nepali citizens, particularly during times of crisis.
Supreme Court Orders Non-Tourist Visa for Same-Sex Spouse, Sets Precedent for Gender Minority Rights:
On February 20, 2018, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Nepal, through a joint bench of Justices Ananda Mohan Bhattarai and Tanka Bahadur Moktan, directed the Department of Immigration to grant a Non-Tourist Visa to an American national married to a Nepali citizen in a same-sex marriage.
The verdict comes in response to a petition filed by Suman Panta, a Nepali national who married Lesly Louis in California before moving to Nepal.
Panta challenged the Department of Immigration’s decision to deny a Non-Tourist Visa to Louis, arguing that the Nepali Constitution guarantees rights to gender and sexual minorities and that foreign nationals married to Nepali citizens are entitled to Non-Tourist Visas.
In its 20-page ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that gender in the Constitution is not limited to male and female and that transgender individuals must not be denied their constitutional rights.
The order stated that visa regulations must be interpreted in line with constitutional protections, ensuring that gender and sexual minorities receive equal treatment under the law.
The bench also recognized the broader challenges faced by gender minorities, including social stigma, educational barriers, employment discrimination, and health risks.
The Court noted that these systemic issues increase their vulnerability to exploitation, violence, and social exclusion.
The ruling also placed moral responsibility on the Federal Parliament to take proactive steps in implementing the constitutional rights of gender minorities.
The Court urged lawmakers to introduce inclusive legal provisions that ensure the empowerment and protection of sexual and gender minorities, eliminating institutional barriers that restrict their rights.
The final part of the verdict reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s earlier directive to the government to enact or amend laws ensuring equal rights for LGBTIQ+ individuals.
However, the Court refrained from issuing additional directives, expressing hope that Parliament would act responsibly in creating an inclusive legal framework.
This ruling is a significant step forward in Nepal’s evolving legal recognition of same-sex marriages and gender minorities.
It reinforces the constitutional guarantee of non-discrimination and sets a legal precedent for future cases concerning the rights of gender and sexual minorities in Nepal.
The Supreme Court’s intervention sets an important precedent for future electoral disputes involving gender identity, ensuring that LGBTIQ+ individuals are not deprived of their right to political participation due to bureaucratic inconsistencies.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Deepak Raj Joshi and Biswas Acharya, who argued that the denial of a visa violated fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice.
The Court’s ruling now paves the way for further legal reforms to protect and promote the rights of LGBTIQ+ individuals in Nepal.
Upholds LGBTIQ+ Electoral Rights, Blocks EC’s Decision:
On November 15, 2022, in a significant legal intervention, the Supreme Court of Nepal, under the single bench of Justice Dr. Anand Mohan Bhattarai, issued an interim order halting the Election Commission’s (EC) decision to remove LGBTIQ+ candidates from the proportional representation (PR) list for the November 20 elections.
The decision comes in response to a writ petition challenging the EC’s move to disqualify 37 candidates—17 for the House of Representatives and 20 for provincial assemblies—on the grounds that their gender identities in the closed list did not match their citizenship certificates.
The order prevents the EC from implementing its decision until further court review.
The case was triggered by CPN (Unified Socialist) filing a writ on behalf of Dilu Buduja, a third-gender individual who was listed in the party’s PR candidate list.
The EC’s move to disqualify Buduja, citing identity mismatches in official documents, sparked allegations of discrimination and violation of electoral rights.
The party contended that the EC’s actions contradicted natural justice and fundamental rights, calling for urgent judicial intervention.
Justice Bhattarai’s interim order acknowledges the serious implications of the EC’s decision and ensures that gender minority candidates remain on the PR list while the case is under review. The ruling serves as a legal safeguard against potential electoral discrimination.
This case reinforces Nepal’s legal commitment to protecting marginalized communities in electoral politics.
By preventing the removal of sexual minority candidates, Justice Bhattarai’s bench has upheld the principle of inclusivity in Nepal’s proportional representation system.
The Supreme Court’s intervention sets an important precedent for future electoral disputes involving gender identity, ensuring that LGBTIQ+ individuals are not deprived of their right to political participation due to bureaucratic inconsistencies.
The final hearing on the matter will further determine the extent of legal protections for gender minorities in Nepal’s democratic process.
