Kathmandu, September 28
Opposition lawmakers have questioned the government over the detention and subsequent release of former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, but lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) did not raise the issue in Parliament.
During the emergency hour of Monday’s parliamentary session, RSP lawmakers raised issues concerning public life, including the damage caused by floods and landslides and the need for greater preparedness.
But they remained silent on the detention of Rana, who was taken from his residence late Saturday night and released into the custody of his family on Sunday afternoon.
Rana was taken to the Criminal Investigation Office in Teku after police arrived at his Maharajgunj residence at around midnight.
Police initially described the action as an arrest but later said Rana had been taken to a safe place because of a security threat. Authorities have not publicly disclosed the nature of the alleged threat or clarified the specific legal basis for taking him from his home. Police also did not present an arrest warrant to Rana, according to reports.
The National Human Rights Commission team that went to the Teku office to meet Rana was also not allowed to see him. The team waited for around 45 minutes before leaving. The commission later criticised the police conduct, saying it was contrary to its constitutional and legal rights.
While RSP lawmakers did not raise the matter in Parliament, some party lawmakers have expressed concerns about the police action on social media.
Ranju Darshana questions the procedure
RSP lawmaker Ranju Darshana said that although the law allows a person to be arrested when there is evidence of an offence, the legal procedure and evidentiary basis for an arrest must also be respected.
“Even when an offence is evident and a person can be arrested, the process of arrest must follow the law,” Darshana wrote on Facebook.
She said an allegation alone was not sufficient and that there must be grounds and evidence to establish an offence.
According to Darshana, the essence of the rule of law is that state authority must be exercised in accordance with proper procedure and evidence.
“Authority can be exercised, but not without procedure and evidence,” she wrote.
Darshana described Rana’s detention as an action taken to temporarily move him to a safe place and urged the authorities to strengthen security around him.
She also said the state should ensure that no “generation” is in a position to threaten him.
Her remarks came after police said Rana had been taken into custody because of a security threat.
Police have not publicly explained what the threat was, who posed it or why Rana needed to be removed from his residence rather than provided additional security there.
Rajiv Khattri questions how the security threat disappeared
Another RSP lawmaker, Rajiv Khattri, also questioned the police explanation.
“Police said there was a ‘security threat’ to Cholendra,” Khattri wrote on social media.
“But the reason for the detention was kept secret and he was released. It is still not clear how the security threat to Cholendra disappeared.”
Khattri used sarcasm to question the official explanation.
He compared the situation to a hypothetical scenario in which Rana’s house was supposedly at risk of flooding, forcing authorities to move him to safety, only for the rain to stop and the authorities to return him to his family once the sun came out.
The point, he suggested, was that the government had not provided a convincing explanation for what happened.
‘The state should guarantee security’
Khattri said the responsibility of the state is to guarantee security when a citizen feels threatened.
But he questioned the manner in which police removed Rana from his home.
“If a citizen feels unsafe, it is the state’s responsibility to provide security. But the way the police picked him up from his home, almost in the style of an abduction, was not right,” he wrote.
Khattri also recalled the arrest of RSP chair Rabi Lamichhane.
He said the manner in which Lamichhane was previously arrested was wrong and argued that the same criticism applies to the action against Rana.
“If the former chief justice has done something wrong, he can be prosecuted. But the proper method and procedure must be followed,” Khattri wrote.
He said there could be “a thousand questions” about Rana’s conduct and that if there were grounds to prosecute him over alleged moral or financial wrongdoing, the state should do so.
“Cholendra’s actions can raise a thousand questions. If there has been moral or financial wrongdoing, he should be held accountable. Other leaders facing similar allegations should also be investigated,” Khattri wrote.
“But taking him in the middle of the night without even providing an arrest warrant was wrong.”
Questions over the government’s explanation
The police have maintained that Rana was taken to the Criminal Investigation Office after authorities received information about a security threat.
SSP Santosh Khadka of the Crime Investigation Office said Rana was brought to the office because police believed something could happen to him. Police later handed him over to his relatives and said security would be provided at his residence.
However, police have not explained the nature of the threat or identified who or what posed it.
The ambiguity has also raised questions over whether Rana was formally arrested or was placed in protective custody.
A senior police official initially confirmed that Rana had been detained. Later, the Crime Investigation Office described the action as a security measure and said there was no plan to file a case against him.
The lack of a clear explanation has drawn criticism from lawyers, opposition politicians and human rights officials.
RSP’s silence in Parliament
The issue was particularly notable in Monday’s parliamentary session because RSP lawmakers did not raise the detention during the emergency hour.
They instead spoke about damage caused by floods and landslides, public safety and the need for preparedness.
The silence is notable because two RSP lawmakers have publicly questioned the manner in which Rana was detained.
While Darshana and Khattri have raised concerns on social media, the party’s lawmakers as a group have not yet raised the issue in Parliament.
For now, the government has maintained that the action was taken because of a security threat.
But with no public explanation of the alleged threat, no clear disclosure of the legal basis for taking Rana from his home and no explanation of why he was released hours later, questions over the episode remain.
