Submit your Article

A landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of Nepal has sent shockwaves through the financial sector, igniting a fierce debate over the ethical and legal standards required of banking leadership. The case of Madhukumar Chaulagai vs Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) and others emerged from a writ petition targeting the central bank and the leadership of several of Nepal’s largest commercial banks, including Prabhu Bank, Global IME, Nabil Bank and NIC Asia. While the court ultimately dismissed the specific writ petition, the profound legal interpretations delivered by the joint bench of Justice Nahakul Subedi and Justice Nripadhwaj Niroula have quietly established a rigorous, uncompromising new paradigm for corporate governance.

At the absolute center of this dispute was a high-stakes statutory clash: can a minor regulatory warning end a high-flying banking career? The petitioner argued that any bank director or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who had received a disciplinary warning or reprimand from the NRB should be immediately stripped of their post. Under Section 100(2)(a) of the Nepal Rastra Bank Act, 2058, the central bank holds the authority to issue simple warnings or reprimands for minor regulatory infractions. 

The petitioner’s core argument was that these disciplinary actions, no matter how seemingly ‘minor’, immediately trigger the harsh disqualification criteria embedded in Section 18(1)(ng) of the Bank and Financial Institution Act (BAFIA), 2073, which bars any individual ‘punished’ by a regulatory body from holding leadership positions. In response, the commercial banks and the NRB defended the status quo, pleading that a simple administrative warning should not be equated with the severe penalty of mid-term dismissal unless the NRB explicitly ordered such a removal.

Faced with this tension, the Supreme Court delivered an incredibly sophisticated and farsighted interpretation of banking law that strikes a delicate balance between immediate market stability and long-term sector integrity. 

On one hand, the court protected current tenures, ruling that a mere warning under Section 100(2) does not necessitate immediate, mid-term removal unless a specific order for dismissal is issued by the NRB—a move that prevents sudden, disruptive leadership vacuums in systemic banks. 

On the other hand, the court set a devastating legal trap for non-compliant executives regarding future eligibility. It ruled that any disciplinary action under Section 100(2), including a simple warning, constitutes a formal regulatory ‘punishment’. Consequently, while a warned executive may be allowed to quietly finish their current term, that warning acts as an absolute, permanent legal barrier preventing them from ever being reappointed or taking up a leadership role at any other financial institution in Nepal.

To ensure this new standard is actively enforced rather than ignored, the court issued a powerful Directive Order (Nirdeshanatmak Aadesh) directly to the Nepal Rastra Bank. The justices made it clear that the central bank cannot use its own internal, administrative categorizations of ‘minor’ versus ‘major’ offenses to bypass the strict eligibility criteria written into law by the legislature in BAFIA. 

This judicial intervention effectively dismantles the NRB’s historical practice of using casual ‘slaps on the wrist’ to quietly manage compliant but rule-breaking executives. By declaring that even a simple warning constitutes a career-ending regulatory black mark, the court has stripped away regulatory leniency, leaving banking leaders with a zero-tolerance reality where a single formal reprimand serves as a professional death sentence.

Looking ahead, this landmark judgment fundamentally redefines the relationship between banking leaders and the state. While it temporarily shields current executives from immediate ousting, it guarantees that those who have cut corners or violated regulatory compliance will find their careers permanently ended the moment their current terms expire. This creates an incredibly powerful deterrent against regulatory negligence and elevates public trust in Nepal’s financial architecture.

Ultimately, this intellectually rigorous verdict clarifies that ethical integrity is not a flexible, negotiable luxury for those at the helm of our financial system. It serves as a historic reminder that banking is a public trust, and for Nepal’s financial elite, strict regulatory compliance is now the only viable path to a sustainable career.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

Last month, I had the opportunity to undertake an important visit from Kathmandu to Malaysia, a journey that was not merely diplomatic or professional in nature, but one that represented a significant exercise in international legal coordination, institutional trust-building, and cross-border dispute resolution. The visit carried responsibilities that intersected legal advocacy, diplomacy, government coordination, and Nepal’s broader national interest abroad.

Looking back, the experience offered a powerful reminder of how increasingly interconnected our world has become, and how international disputes today require cooperation that transcends borders, institutions, and conventional bureaucratic boundaries.

The primary purpose of the visit was connected to an ongoing case currently under investigation in Malaysia involving legal and financial matters that had implications for both the Nepali and Malaysian sides. The matter had already reached the Malaysian court system, with parallel involvement from Malaysia’s crime investigation division. Given the prolonged nature of the dispute and the need to bring the matter closer to resolution, this visit became crucial in understanding the current status of the investigation, reviewing the progress made so far, and working toward an eventual closure of the case.

In situations involving cross-border legal disputes, especially those with financial and regulatory dimensions, resolution is rarely straightforward. It requires constant communication between governments, financial regulators, legal institutions, and diplomatic representatives. 

During my stay in Malaysia, I engaged in discussions and meetings involving several critical stakeholders, including representatives connected with Malaysian Central Bank, officials linked to the Malaysian government, stakeholders associated with Malaysia’s foreign ministry, legal representatives involved in the court proceedings, and other relevant authorities whose cooperation remains essential for moving the case toward conclusion.

My role during this visit carried multiple layers of responsibility. I was representing the interests and concerns connected to the Nepali side, working in coordination with institutions including the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Nepal, Nepal Rastra Bank, and the Nepali diplomatic mission in Malaysia. As a legal professional and advocate, my task was not simply observational. It required active engagement in facilitating communication and helping move forward dispute settlement discussions between stakeholders on both sides.

International disputes often become complicated because parties operate under entirely different legal systems, administrative cultures, and regulatory frameworks. In this particular matter, the challenge was to ensure that both the Nepali institutions and the Malaysian institutions found common ground while respecting each country’s sovereign legal process. My responsibility centered on helping bridge this gap, ensuring communication remained constructive and that both parties moved closer to a mutually acceptable dispute settlement framework.

One of the most encouraging aspects of the visit was witnessing the level of institutional support extended by the Nepali government. Cross-border disputes often test a nation’s ability to protect its interests beyond its physical boundaries. 

In this case, the support and coordination demonstrated by Nepali authorities showed how governments can play a proactive role in safeguarding national concerns abroad. The way different state institutions collaborated in addressing this issue can serve as an important example for handling similar international disputes in the future. As globalization deepens, Nepal will increasingly encounter legal and financial disputes involving foreign jurisdictions, making institutional preparedness and diplomatic coordination more important than ever.

A particularly meaningful part of my visit involved close coordination with Nepal’s diplomatic representatives in Malaysia. I had the privilege of meeting Mudita Bajracharya, Nepal’s ambassador to Malaysia, along with Sushil Ghimire, first secretary at the embassy. These interactions reinforced my belief that diplomatic institutions remain one of the strongest pillars in protecting national interest abroad.

Ambassador Bajracharya’s leadership deserves special recognition. International diplomacy often demands a careful balance between professionalism, strategic communication, and the ability to navigate highly sensitive situations. Throughout the process, her commitment and active involvement reflected strong diplomatic leadership. Her handling of responsibilities demonstrated how effective representation abroad can significantly contribute to solving complex issues involving multiple governments and institutions. 

It was particularly inspiring to witness the role of a female ambassador carrying out such responsibilities with exceptional competence, confidence, and dedication. Her leadership stands as a powerful example of the growing role of women in international diplomacy and governance.

Beyond the legal and diplomatic responsibilities that brought me to Malaysia, I also had the opportunity to witness an important event that reflected another dimension of Nepal’s engagement abroad, the promotion of culture, tourism, and national identity.

On May 29, the Embassy of Nepal in Malaysia organized a special program marking International Sagarmatha Day. The event carried symbolic importance as it recognized Malaysian citizens who had successfully ascended Sagarmatha. The embassy facilitated and honored these climbers in a ceremony that celebrated both human achievement and Nepal’s unique place in the world as home to the highest mountain on Earth.

I found this event particularly significant because it demonstrated how diplomacy extends far beyond political negotiations or legal disputes. Tourism diplomacy has become an increasingly important component of international relations, especially for countries like Nepal whose natural heritage forms a vital part of the national economy. By recognizing Malaysian climbers and promoting Sagarmatha internationally, Nepal’s diplomatic mission was effectively strengthening people-to-people relations while simultaneously promoting tourism, travel, and Nepal’s global identity.

Throughout the entire visit, I remained focused on fulfilling every responsibility entrusted to me. From legal consultations and stakeholder meetings to diplomatic coordination and observing institutional processes, the experience demanded professionalism, adaptability, and patience. I am pleased to reflect that the travel itself was smooth, the coordination between institutions remained friendly and constructive, and meaningful progress was made toward dispute resolution.

What stood out most from this journey was a broader lesson about the changing nature of international engagement. In today’s world, disputes involving governments, financial institutions, legal jurisdictions, and international stakeholders are becoming increasingly common. Resolving them requires far more than legal expertise alone. It demands diplomacy, patience, mutual respect, institutional cooperation, and individuals willing to serve as bridges between different systems.

This experience reaffirmed for me that international dispute resolution is ultimately about trust. Governments must trust institutions, institutions must trust legal processes, and nations must trust diplomacy as a pathway toward peaceful solutions. The successful cooperation between the Nepali and Malaysian sides in this case demonstrates what becomes possible when all stakeholders approach a dispute not as adversaries, but as partners seeking resolution.

As Nepal continues expanding its global economic, diplomatic, and institutional footprint, cases like these offer valuable lessons. They remind us that protecting national interests abroad requires capable institutions at home, effective diplomatic representation overseas, and professionals willing to shoulder difficult responsibilities in service of larger national goals.

My visit to Malaysia was therefore far more than a professional assignment. It was an opportunity to contribute, in however small a way, to a process that showcased the strength of diplomacy, the importance of legal cooperation, and the ability of nations to resolve even complex disputes through dialogue and mutual respect.

And perhaps most importantly, it demonstrated that when governments stand behind their institutions, when diplomats shoulder their responsibilities with excellence, and when all stakeholders prioritize solutions over confrontation, international cooperation can become not only effective, but exemplary. Nepal’s handling of this matter should be seen as an encouraging model for addressing similar disputes in the future, a reminder that even in an increasingly complex world, collaborative solutions remain possible.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

The growing trend of using social media to attack courts, judges and, to some extent, legal professionals through personal abuse, ridicule and targeted humiliation is deeply troubling. Such conduct corrodes public discourse, undermines respect for institutions and risks normalizing intimidation as a form of expression. There is no justification for criminal, obscene or socially degrading speech aimed at individuals discharging constitutional responsibilities. This phenomenon deserves clear condemnation.

Yet condemning toxic expressions alone is not enough. A more uncomfortable but necessary question must also be asked: has the failure to openly and timely address the distortions, inconsistencies and internal weaknesses within the judiciary and the legal profession itself created fertile ground for this outburst of resentment on social media?

For years, concerns about the judiciary have circulated quietly—sometimes in academic circles, sometimes in private conversations among lawyers, journalists and citizens. These concerns range from opaque and non-transparent appointments to questions about intellectual rigor, professional competence, ethical consistency and accountability of some judges and legal actors. There are also deeper anxieties about institutional culture: delays in justice, selective urgency, perceived influence of power and proximity, and an erosion of public confidence in fairness. When such issues are repeatedly brushed aside, minimized  or metaphorically swept under the carpet, frustration does not disappear—it mutates.

Social media, with all its flaws, has become the outlet for that mutation.

It is important to be clear: abuse is not critique. Personal attacks are not reform. Threats and insults do not strengthen democracy. But neither does enforced silence. When legitimate debate about institutional shortcomings is discouraged, delegitimized or branded as contempt, the space for reasoned criticism shrinks. What rushes in to fill that vacuum is often anger—raw, unstructured, and destructive.

This is not unique to the judiciary, nor to Nepal. Across democracies, institutions that resist introspection tend to lose moral authority. Respect cannot be demanded indefinitely; it must be renewed through performance, integrity and openness to scrutiny. The judiciary, precisely because it wields immense power over liberty, property and rights, must be held to the highest standards—not only by law, but by public expectation.

A mature democracy distinguishes between malicious attacks and principled criticism. It protects judges from intimidation while allowing citizens to question systems, decisions and processes. It understands that reverence without accountability breeds stagnation, while criticism without responsibility breeds chaos. The challenge lies in holding both truths at once.

Continuous review, honest self-critique and institutional reform are not threats to judicial independence; they are its foundations. A judiciary that welcomes evaluation—of appointment procedures, training standards, ethical enforcement and transparency—signals confidence, not weakness. Conversely, one that appears defensive or closed risks alienating the very public whose trust it requires to function.

Legal professionals, too, must look inward. The bar is not merely a defender of the bench; it is a bridge between law and society. When lawyers dismiss public concerns outright or circle wagons without addressing substance, they inadvertently deepen the credibility gap. Reform is not betrayal; it is responsibility.

Social media excesses must be checked through law, norms and collective ethics. But reform cannot begin with censorship alone. It must begin with acknowledgement: that there are unresolved issues within the justice system, that some criticisms—when stripped of their abusive packaging—point to real grievances, and that postponing reform only amplifies discontent.

A capable, dignified and trustworthy judiciary does not emerge from denial. It takes shape through constant reflection, principled criticism, and a willingness to correct course. If we truly seek to restore respect for the courts, the answer lies not in silencing voices, but in strengthening institutions—so that criticism becomes measured, trust becomes earned and justice becomes visibly, consistently fair.

Only through sustained review, reform and openness can an ignored ideal be transformed into a living, credible justice system—one that commands respect not by fear or distance, but by integrity and performance.

Firstly, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the newly appointed Prime Minister, Sushila Karki. Sushila Kari’s  appointment is not only historic but also deeply personal to me. Having worked alongside her in the legal fraternity, I have witnessed her journey up close—first as a lawyer, then as a judge, justice and eventually as the chief justice of Nepal. Our paths have often crossed in the Bar and Bench, where we shared the common pursuit of justice and fairness.

Beyond the professional sphere, there is also a sense of cultural and social affinity. Our birthplaces lie close to each other, and we were shaped by similar traditions and values. That shared background makes this moment even more meaningful to me. It gives me great satisfaction to see someone I once knew as a fellow lawyer, and later admired as the country’s first woman chief justice, now take on the mantle of interim prime minister.

However, with this happiness also comes responsibility. At this critical juncture, I feel it is important to share a few suggestions with her—drawn not only from my professional experience but also from my hopes for the nation.

Her appointment has come at a particularly critical moment in our national history. As someone who has spent her entire career interpreting, upholding, and shaping the law, Karki herself is the foremost authority on whether her elevation to the post of interim prime minister aligns with constitutional principles. She is not just a student of the law; she has been its interpreter, guardian, and defender. In that sense, there is little need for anyone else to lecture her on constitutional validity—she knows it better than most of us.

What is equally important is the response her appointment has received beyond our borders. Within hours of the announcement, messages of congratulations poured in from the United Nations, from our neighbor India—the world’s largest democracy—and from other nations. Such swift recognition is not just diplomatic formality; it is, in fact, an international endorsement of her leadership at a delicate time. This in itself is a powerful signal: the world is watching Nepal closely, and it stands ready to support her stewardship of the country in this transitional phase.

Yet, in my view, much of this international endorsement was less about constitutional propriety and more about symbolism. The world welcomed the fact that Nepal, for the first time in its history, has a woman prime minister. Beyond that symbolic achievement, however, the path to her appointment was far from the ideal parliamentary process. It was not the outcome of a broad democratic consensus but rather the product of pressure from a handful of immature and violent youths who, in the name of revolution, took to vandalizing public and private property, and even attacking politicians and their homes.

What disturbed me even more was the conspicuous silence of the security forces. The Nepal Police, Armed Police Force and even the Nepali Army—institutions entrusted with upholding law and order—stood by as these mobs unleashed violence. Their inaction gave the impression that even our security apparatuses had grown weary of the political class and, perhaps out of frustration, chose not to intervene much. This tacit disengagement raised troubling questions about the health of both our democracy and our institutions at a moment when the country desperately needed stability and restraint.

I may be wrong in my assessment, but those of us who understand the rule of law—the intellects, the thinkers and the practitioners—must not hesitate to speak the truth. Silence in the face of irregularities only allows society, leadership and government to stray from the right path.

With that in mind, my foremost suggestion to the interim prime minister is to actively engage in dialogue with the existing political parties, at least those represented in parliament. She must seek their acknowledgment of her leadership and, wherever possible, include members with clean reputations from these parties in her cabinet. Such inclusion is not a concession; it is a strategic necessity. Acceptance from these parties will be crucial for her governance, for building stability and for preparing the ground for upcoming parliamentary elections. Creating an environment of confidence among all stakeholders should be her priority, and the composition of her cabinet should reflect that goal—bringing in those who can genuinely facilitate dialogue, cooperation and a forward-looking political atmosphere.

It is equally important that the interim prime minister exercise discretion in selecting her ministers. She must avoid appointing populists or those who have become “heroes” overnight through social media. Expressing opinions online for popularity is one thing; offering sound advice and contributing to effective governance is quite another. For meaningful progress, the cabinet should consist of well-educated and experienced individuals capable of guiding the leadership with wisdom and foresight. By doing so, she can set a powerful precedent—stabilizing the country and restoring the standards of good governance.

Her focus must extend beyond political symbolism. She should prioritize solutions that strengthen peace and security, promote transparent and effective governance, combat corruption, and ensure free, fair and timely elections. These steps are essential not only for preserving the constitution but also for safeguarding the democratic framework and the future of our nation.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

After much delay and several twists and turns, Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) finally got a new governor, Biswo Poudel, about a month ago. There was a 46-day gap between the retirement of the previous governor and the appointment of his successor. Although the appointment came late, the central bank has now secured a well-qualified leader. Poudel is a respected economist with deep knowledge of Nepal’s economic history and the foresight to prepare for the future, making him a fitting choice to lead the central bank of the country at this critical time.

Poudel possesses a deep understanding of Nepal’s geography, cultural dynamics, social structure and the foundations of national development. He is well-versed in national planning, business, economics and the broader financial and economic landscape. 

The governor brings with him a wealth of experience and experience, having already served as vice-chairperson of the National Planning Commission, senior economic advisor to the Ministry of Finance and chair of the Board of Governors at ICIMOD, adviser to the International Labour Organization (ILO), led regional forums under the Colombo Plan and UNESCAP, and published research articles in several international economic journals. At the time of appointment as the governor, Poudel was a visiting associate professor at the Kathmandu University School of Management.

His academic and professional expertise spans natural resource economics, labour markets and economic history—areas closely aligned with Nepal’s long-term development priorities.

Over the years, he has closely studied monetary policies and the functioning of banks and financial institutions (BFIs). The business community, economic stakeholders, the stock market and other financial sectors have welcomed his appointment.

A former Minister of State for Finance and economist, Udaya Shumsher Rana, remarked that since the appointment of the new governor, all eyes are on the central bank, with its new leadership appearing more influential than even the Ministry of Finance.

Widespread optimism following his appointment suggests a hopeful outlook for the country’s economic progress in the days to come.

If this momentum continues, Poudel’s five-year tenure is likely to have a positive and lasting impact on the national economy.

This is an important and encouraging development for the public, as key aspects of the economy—such as controlling inflation, ensuring stable and positive economic activity, generating employment, keeping industries running smoothly and fostering a harmonious relationship between banks and the business community—largely depend on the leadership of the NRB. With Poudel at the helm, there is a sense of optimism and satisfaction among all concerned, at a time when the private sector, BFIs and the broader economic landscape are facing numerous challenges.

Businesses and industries have been struggling to recover fully since 2019, when a Covid-19 pandemic hit the country and consigned its economy to sickbed. Against this backdrop, the NRB leadership must prioritize the revival of these sectors and focus on correcting structural economic imbalances. This is what the country needs—and what the people expect.

The country faces a multitude of economic challenges. The central bank had long been in need of a capable scholar, who could address these pressing issues with expertise and vision. Economic recovery cannot be achieved through rhetoric alone; it demands strong leadership, a positive mindset and dedicated effort. Governor Poudel is surely aware of this reality. With the support of NRB’s competent team, let’s hope, he manages to work diligently toward the nation’s economic development and progress.

The author, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

In the recently-concluded Nepal Bar Association election, the alliance of the Democratic Lawyers Association (DLA), close with the Nepali Congress, and the Progressive and Professional Lawyers Association (PPLA), close with the CPN-UML, achieved a landslide victory. Lawyers’ associations close to the CPN (Maoist Center) and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) had also formed a separate electoral panel but failed to secure a single seat in the 25-member working committee.

As a member and voter in the Supreme Court Bar, I believe these professional associations should remain purely professional. However, they act like sister organizations of political parties, which is deeply concerning. In these elections, political party leaders often nominate and back the contenders, turning the process into an extension of party politics. A troubling trend has emerged where the same coalitions formed at the central government level are replicated within these associations. As a result, professional bodies established for the betterment of professionals have become just as weak and unstable as the country’s central politics.

No political party or their affiliated organizations have the courage to contest elections independently—they almost always form coalitions, which is deeply concerning and detrimental to democratic practice. In a healthy political system, both the government and the opposition should be strong and functional, but that is not the case in Nepal.

The opposition has failed to fulfill its role. As a government-in-waiting, it should hold the ruling party accountable, scrutinize its actions and prevent misuse of power. At the same time, the government should focus on effective service delivery, development and be accountable to the parliament, operating under the rule of law. But neither side is doing its job.

Worse still, when it comes to covering up their wrongdoings—especially corruption—the top leaders of the major parties seem to stand united. There is neither peace nor prosperity, neither good service delivery nor meaningful development. What prevails instead is nepotism.

The government is often influenced by brokers and businesspeople, who support those in power but deliver no benefits to ordinary citizens. Most appointments are made to serve the interests of middlemen rather than the public. This troubling trend persists, regardless of which party is in power.

Because of these ongoing wrongdoings, people have started questioning whether the problem lies in our constitution and current political system. Some are even wondering if returning to the old system might be better. Recent protests have further fueled public sentiment in favor of a systemic change. Due to the misconduct of politicians and the deep politicization of every institution, our political system—and indeed our democracy—is now at risk.

Within the country, many people oppose certain aspects of the constitution, such as the secular state, federalism, proportional representation and inclusivity, even if we are to ignore neighbors’ concerns. There are growing calls for constitutional amendments. However, the government has been ignoring these concerns, which has led to widespread public frustration. Without addressing these issues, how can the country achieve peace and prosperity? How will economic growth take place? How can citizens expect efficient service delivery?

The major political leaders—Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Sharma Oli, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal—must reflect and reform as the public has entrusted them with power time and again. This is a crucial moment: if they fail to correct their course, it will have serious consequences for our political system, as public sentiment is rapidly shifting due to their repeated misdeeds.

Another troubling situation lies within the political parties themselves. The current leadership has weakened these parties, as there is little to no value given to dedicated leaders and grassroots cadres. 

Why has politics been made so dirty by these leaders? Why can’t these parties contest elections alone? What has weakened the foundation of these parties so badly? The public is convinced that, since the leaders are corrupt and have no intention of reforming themselves, the problem cannot be resolved. This crisis stems from extreme politicization and the growing trend of political coalitions. As most of them are corrupt, they have joined forces not only to cover up their irregularities but also to continue them. Today, political parties and their leaders seem to lack any real ideology—corruption and nepotism seem to be their only focus.

The Nepali Congress, founded in 1950, has a rich legacy in Nepali politics, having played a crucial role in every major political transformation the country has witnessed. The people of Nepal have consistently supported the party, helping it become a strong force in parliament. However, the party is now unable to contest elections on its own. Even in the Bar elections or any election in any sector, why is a coalition necessary? All candidates were respected professionals, so a panel winning or losing would not have made much of a difference.

So why was the alliance necessary?
This coalition culture has deeply affected Nepal—across all sectors, from top to bottom. These tie-ups allow political actors to collaborate in corruption without accountability, as no one is left to question them. This is a deeply troubling situation.

How long will this continue? It has deeply troubled ideologically-driven cadres, and this frustration could eventually impact our political system and even the constitution. The political leadership must address this issue in a timely manner. In the days ahead, all elections—whether federal, provincial, local or those of political organizations and sister wings—should be contested independently. Each party should remain true to its ideology. Politics should not be tainted. No one benefits from such practices.

If the current leadership of these political parties is unwilling to change the status quo, then alternative leaders must step forward. For instance, in the Nepali Congress, Shekhar Koirala should take a stand for change if Sher Bahadur Deuba does not. The same applies to KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal in their respective parties. Such shifts in leadership can strengthen party organizations and make the parties more competitive in the days to come.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

The recently concluded Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Summit in Thailand saw several important sideline meetings between heads of state and government.  Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli held a bilateral meeting with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. The two leaders discussed a wide range of issues:  economic cooperation, trade, aviation, tourism, culture, and development partnerships. 

During the visit, eight Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) were signed—two at the government level and six between non-governmental entities. Among them, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba and Thailand’s Minister for Culture Sudawan Wangsuphakijkosol signed an MoU to foster cultural collaboration. Deuba also signed an agreement on tourism cooperation with Thai Minister for Tourism and Sports Sorawong Thienthong.

Other MoUs were inked between Nepal Netra Jyoti Sangh and Mahidol University, Janata Agro and Forestry Nepal and Kasetsart University, the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) and the Board of Trade of Thailand, and Kathmandu University and Siam University. The Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI) also reached an agreement with the Federation of Thai Industries, and the Nepal Chamber of Commerce signed one with the Tourism Council of Thailand. These commitment partnerships are expected to enhance cooperation across various sectors.

 Prime Minister Shinawatra announced Thailand’s intention to increase investments in Nepal’s aviation and tourism sectors. She expressed interest in expanding Thai Airlines' flights to Kathmandu and launching direct flights to Lumbini. She further emphasized Thailand’s plans to prioritize investments in Nepal’s energy, hospitality, and aviation industries. Calling the visit historic, she highlighted the shared goal of deepening connectivity and trade relations.

PM Oli said the visit strengthened Nepal-Thailand relations. He voiced confidence in future collaboration in areas such as culture, tourism, education, and energy. Reflecting on six decades of diplomatic ties, he called for greater engagement, including stronger people-to-people connections. He also encouraged Thai investors to explore opportunities in Nepal’s hospitality and aviation sectors.

Overall, Prime Minister Oli’s visit to Thailand proved to be highly significant. One of the most notable events on the sidelines was his  one-on-one meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The two leaders met privately for 45 minutes, and Oli appeared pleased and content afterward—indicating the success of his visit.

Foreign policy must remain dynamic and responsive, as global geopolitics continues to evolve. It is crucial that Nepal reaches a national consensus on its foreign policy framework. Such a policy should transcend individual leaders or political parties. Whether led by Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, or Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepal’s foreign policy should remain consistent, reflecting the nation’s long-term interests rather than shifting with changes in leadership.

There are fundamental bases for foreign policy, and these should be discussed among all stakeholders to reach a consensus. This is a crucial time for such dialogue. While formulating our foreign policy, we must consider factors such as our geography, social norms, cultural and religious aspects, political system, international affiliations, and commitments under the United Nations Charter. If this approach is taken, the policy will be more broadly accepted.

Foreign policy may vary depending on the nature of a country’s relationship—whether we share borders, cultural and social ties, or strategic interests with major powers and donor nations.

Our foreign policy should be firmly aligned with the principles of Panchsheel and the Non-Aligned Movement. At this juncture, Nepal must prioritize sustainable development, peace and security, democratic governance by the people’s representatives, and overall national progress—guided by our geography, social structure, political system, and economic aspirations. As society advances, with improvements in education, healthcare, and global competitiveness, it is essential that our foreign policy reflects these changes. 

As the Nepal Bar Association gears up for its central working committee election on April 5, the legal fraternity finds itself at a crossroads. The practice of forming ideological panels, such as the BPLA and DLA groups, has been ongoing since the 1990 movement. However, this election cycle has brought an alarming shift—party politics has permeated the selection process like never before.

The DLA group, which typically forms a committee to select candidates, has instead seen nominations dictated by political parties and their top leaders. This direct intervention has left many advocates disillusioned, as it compromises the independence of the Bar. A politically-entangled Bar cannot function freely; it will remain under constant pressure, unable to uphold professional ethics or safeguard the rights of advocates. More worryingly, such a Bar threatens the integrity of the judiciary, given its integral role within the judiciary.

Beyond political interference, another troubling trend looms over Nepal’s legal profession. Increasingly, individuals who have spent their careers in government, academia or other fields secure advocate licenses and quickly ascend to the title of ‘senior lawyer.’ Many of these individuals, having already ensured their financial security elsewhere, lack the commitment to legal ethics and instead drag politics into professional spaces. This dilutes the purity of the profession and weakens the moral fiber of the Bar. Those who have worked their entire lives in different careers, without having any substantial contribution to the legal field, now enter the profession late and demand to be treated as senior advocates without earning the respect and credibility that should come with experience and dedication. 

The legal field is also under persistent assault from political parties, leaders and even members of the judiciary, eroding professionalism. Today, only a few lawyers remain independent; many are aligned with political factions or other interest groups. The profession is plagued by party-affiliated lawyers, judicial middlemen, brokers of smugglers, foreign-backed lawyers and those with entrenched corporate ties. These forces have made it increasingly difficult for fresh, independent advocates to sustain themselves, further compromising the profession’s ethical foundations. The number of truly independent lawyers has diminished, and those who try to work ethically often struggle to establish themselves financially. The legal profession, once a noble pursuit of justice, has now become a field where many enter for power, influence and financial gain rather than for the service of the people and in pursuit of justice. 

Regardless of who wins the upcoming election, all candidates have contested under the influence of political parties. This means the eventual victor will likely follow party directives rather than prioritizing professional integrity. This is a stark contrast to the Nepal Bar Association of 1990, which once wielded the power to influence political transformation, shape legislation and uphold constitutional principles. In various democratic movements, the Bar played a crucial role in safeguarding the rule of law.
However, since the early 2000s, the Bar’s stature has significantly eroded. Though it still holds responsibilities, it has struggled to fulfill them effectively. The Bar Association once had the capacity to influence governance, advocate for necessary legal reforms, and hold the government accountable. But now, it has become just another platform for political maneuvering, with little regard for the professional values that should define the legal community.

To reclaim the lost credibility of the legal profession, advocates must distinguish between true professionals and political middlemen. Holding a law degree or an advocate’s license does not automatically make one a professional. A true advocate builds a career through courtroom debates, rigorous legal research, and dedication to justice. Seniority should not be granted based on the date of acquiring a license but should be earned through experience, respect from the full court, and significant contributions to legal jurisprudence. The legal profession should be led by those who dedicate their lives to it, not by those who see it as an easy way to gain influence after retiring from other careers.

One of the major problems with the current Bar Association is the lack of strict criteria for recognizing seniority. Today, those who have spent most of their lives in other professions—government service, academia, business—can enter the legal field, take an advocate’s license and immediately demand the privileges of seniority. This practice devalues the profession and undermines those who have spent their entire careers advocating in courtrooms, engaging in legal research and upholding the rule of law. 

The judiciary is a pillar of democracy, and if those at its core—lawyers and advocates—are politically influenced, then the entire judicial system is at risk. 

The next leadership of the Nepal Bar Association has an immense responsibility—to restore professionalism, protect constitutional principles and rectify past mistakes. It must ensure that ethical standards are upheld, even holding judges accountable when necessary. The upcoming election is not just about electing new office bearers; it is about setting a precedent for the future of Nepal’s legal profession. It is imperative that the Bar reclaims its independence, ensuring that it remains a pillar of justice rather than a puppet of political influence.
If Nepal’s legal profession is to survive with dignity, its professionals must demand accountability, transparency and independence. The next generation of legal practitioners must work toward rebuilding the credibility of the Bar Association. A law profession tainted by politics, greed and favoritism cannot serve justice. Nepal’s judiciary and legal fraternity must urgently address these issues before it is too late. The Bar Association should not just be an institution for lawyers—it should be a beacon of justice, ethics and integrity in Nepal’s legal landscape.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades