SC to hear Lamichhane’s habeas corpus case today
The hearing had been delayed multiple times after the case landed in the benches of judges who had declared themselves ineligible to hear the matter.
KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court of Nepal is set to hear the habeas corpus writ filed in relation to Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) President Rabi Lamichhane today.
The hearing had been delayed multiple times after the case landed in the benches of judges who had declared themselves ineligible to hear the matter.
According to the Supreme Court administration, arrangements have now been made to assign the writ to benches excluding the ‘recused’ judges. A new bench will be selected today through the lottery system.
Previously, Lamichhane’s writ had appeared before benches led by Justices Manoj Kumar Sharma and Sunil Kumar Pokhrel on three different occasions.
However, due to the inclusion of judges who had listed themselves as unable to hear the case, the proceedings were postponed.
The court has now ordered that the hearing be scheduled only before eligible judges.
The writ, filed on Baisakh 7, was first assigned to Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal’s bench, who also recused himself, causing the hearing to stall. Further scheduled hearings on Baisakh 9, 28, 30, and 31 were similarly postponed.
Lamichhane is a defendant in the high-profile Butwal-based Supreme Cooperative fraud case. Although the Rupandehi District Court had ordered his release on bail, the High Court in Butwal overturned that decision and ordered him to be remanded in custody.
In response, Lamichhane submitted a request from prison under Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Simultaneously, his wife, Nikita Poudel, filed a habeas corpus petition at the Supreme Court, claiming his detention to be unlawful and demanding his release.
The writ names the Government of Nepal, Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Rupandehi District Court, High Court Tulsipur, and Bhadrapur District Police Office as defendants.
The petition alleges that Lamichhane was arrested without proper authorization, by a large number of armed police who entered his private residence and apprehended him directly from his bedroom.
The writ argues that this violated his constitutional rights to dignity, due process, and lawful detention. It also highlights alleged procedural flaws in the arrest, including errors in the detention warrant and failure to follow legal provisions under the criminal code.
