KATHMANDU: Nepal’s justice system collapsed on May 27, 2025 when the Birgunj bench of Janakpur High Court delivered a verdict that will forever stain the nation’s legal history. In a shocking turn of events that has left victim’s families devastated and the public outraged, former Nepali Congress MP Mohammad Aftab Alam walked free after his life imprisonment sentence was brutally overturned. This is a complete betrayal of justice that exposes how Nepal’s courts dance to the tune of political power.

The blood-soaked story begins on April 9, 2008 when Alam orchestrated a devastating bomb explosion in Farhadwa, Rautahat designed to manipulate the Constituent Assembly elections. The blast killed at least two people and severely injured dozens of others mostly Indian nationals who had been hired to make explosives. But Alam’s cruelty didn’t end there. To cover his tracks, this political monster allegedly ordered that the injured victims be burned alive in a brick kiln.

The hermeneutics of the Rautahat District Court was grounded in solid legal reasoning applying Section 177 of the Muluki Criminal Code Act 2017 for murder. The verdict shows how judges must interpret laws applying the Golden rule of interpretation when facing systematic corruption and political interference. For 12 years, powerful people tried to hide the truth.

Systematic obstruction

Police refused to register complaints from victims’ families, the police chief gave false statements and stopped investigations, prosecutors recommended punishment without evidence to help Alam escape and they ignored Supreme Court orders to investigate until contempt of court cases forced them to act. The court had to look beyond simple legal text because evidence was deliberately destroyed, obviously because it was already 12 years the incident happened.

The bomb site was renovated and the brick kiln where victims were burned alive was demolished.

When Nepali Congress leaders publicly defended Alam and organized protests after his arrest, the court realized that normal legal interpretation wouldn’t work against such organized obstruction.

Instead, the judges used purposive interpretation to overcome the most systematic attempts to protect criminals through institutional manipulation.

But the High Court judges, Khushi Prasad Tharu and Arjun Maharjan chose a different path, one that led straight into the arms of injustice. The hermeneutics of the court was insufficient evidence and inconclusive forensic tests. These judges became slaves to procedural technicalities while completely ignoring the overwhelming moral and legal evidence against a man who orchestrated one of the most heinous crimes in Nepal’s recent history.

Judicial failure

With the deepest respect to the majority opinion rendered by the honorable Justices Khushi Prasad Tharu and Arjun Maharjan, I must express my unreserved dissent.

Firstly, the majority’s demand for direct forensic evidence in this case where key physical proof was intentionally destroyed by the accused is seriously misguided. This is not just a missing detail, it is the very method the crime was committed.

When someone is accused of burning injured victims alive in a brick kiln, the lack of remains isn’t proof of innocence, it is the part of the horrific act itself. No doubt that the evidences were destroyed as it had already been 12 years the crime was committed.

In situations like this, strong witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence should hold significant weight. Srinarayan Singh’s statement about his son’s murder was clear, consistent and corroborated by others. This is the Corpus Delicti of the crime. The District Court rightly saw this as powerful and trustworthy evidence. But the High Court dismissed it without properly addressing.

Secondly, appellate courts exist to correct errors in the application of law not in the question of facts which was already established by the trial court after a full hearing.

The high court reinterpreted facts and dismissed credible testimonies without solid justification. This over reach raises serious questions about jurisdictional propriety.

Was the High Court acting within its mandate or did it overstep by intruding into the fact finding domain reserved for trial courts?

Thirdly, judges must resist the temptation to become mere textualists who rigidly apply the letter of the law without regard to its spirit or the broader context. In complex cases like this where literal interpretation leads to absurdity or unjust outcomes, judges have a duty to be judicial activists in the truest sense. The High Court applied textualism by focusing narrowly on the absence of direct forensic evidence by using the Literal rule of interpretation while ignoring the broader context and the legislative intent.

Political shielding

Even more disturbing are the whispers of political interference that have emerged on social media platforms. Allegations suggest that senior Nepali Congress leaders including former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba may have pressured the court to secure Alam’s release. While these claims remain unproven, they reflect the public’s deep suspicion about the timing and nature of this verdict. If true, such interference would constitute a direct violation of Article 128 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2072 which guarantees judicial independence.

The acquittal has shattered the lives of victims’ families in ways that words cannot express. Srinarayan Singh, who sold his land and spent his life savings fighting for justice over 17 years now lives in terror. “My son was burned alive by a demon and the courts have set him free to hunt us again” he told reporters through tears. Sushila Karki in her book, “Nyaya” writes, “The judiciary is the place where ordinary citizens hope for justice even when other arms of the state remain inactive. Therefore, the trust that the people have in this institution must not be allowed to waver.” So, can citizens like Srinarayan Singh still hope for justice?

The complaint has been filed against Judges Tharu and Maharjan in the Judicial Council under Section 18 of the Judicial Council Act 2016 represents the public’s last hope for accountability. The council now has the power and duty to investigate whether these judges violated their oath of office.

Restoring faith in judiciary

The broader implications of this verdict are terrifying. If political figures can escape justice for murder and terrorism through judicial manipulation, what message does this send to future criminals? The High Court has essentially issued a license to kill for anyone with sufficient political connections.

As victims’ families prepare their appeal to the Supreme Court, Nepal’s highest judicial body faces a defining moment.

The Supreme Court must recognize that this case is about more than one man’s guilt or innocence it is about whether Nepal’s legal system will serve justice or surrender to political pressure.

Nepal stands at a crossroads. The country can either allow this miscarriage of justice to become the new normal or it can use this moment to strengthen its commitment to the rule of law. The Judicial Council must investigate these judges thoroughly. The Supreme Court must restore faith in appellate justice. Parliament must consider reforms that prevent such judicial failures in the future.

What a cruel joke that Mohammad Aftab Alam was freed on May 28, 2025, just two days after Nepal celebrated Republic Day. If our republic means that no politician should be above the law then what does Alam’s release tell us about our system 17 years after getting rid of the monarchy? When we celebrate Republic Day while courts free mass murderers because of their political connections, are we really celebrating change or just the same old system of protecting the powerful with a new name?