The Police Must Serve the Law, Not Those in Power

The removal of former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana from his home to police premises at night, followed by his release about 12 hours later, has raised serious questions about police independence and government accountability. The government says Rana was not arrested but moved to a secure location because of a security threat. Yet the differing public accounts, the unclear legal basis for the operation and reports that the National Human Rights Commission’s team was denied access have weakened public confidence. The allegation that Nepal Police is being deliberately weakened cannot be resolved by political claims; it requires evidence and an examination of institutional conduct.

The state has a duty to protect anyone facing a genuine threat. But protective action must have a clear legal basis, a recorded chain of authority and safeguards for the person concerned. The government should explain what threat was identified, who authorised the operation, what instructions the police received and what legal status Rana had while at the police office. Security concerns may justify keeping some operational details confidential; they cannot exempt the decision from independent scrutiny.

The distinction between protection and detention cannot rest on the label officials use after the event. If someone is taken from home, held for hours and then released, the authorities must account for the legal basis, duration and conditions of that action. The person’s family and authorised oversight bodies should be informed and given access. Preventing the National Human Rights Commission from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities demands an impartial investigation and a public explanation.

Police powers—including the power to arrest, investigate and use force—directly affect people’s rights. If the police become an instrument for carrying out political instructions, the rule of law is weakened. When the source of an order is unclear, its stated purpose changes and no one accepts responsibility, public doubt about police impartiality grows. That doubt harms the whole institution, not only the person affected in a particular case.

Claims of political influence over the police must be tested against evidence. Are appointments, transfers, promotions and investigations governed by clear, consistently applied criteria? Are unexplained transfers common? Are operational orders properly recorded? Transparent procedures, predictable tenure and protection for officers who refuse unlawful orders are essential safeguards. These are also the standards by which any claim of a deliberate effort to weaken the force should be assessed.

A strong police service is not simply one with wider powers or more resources. It is one that follows the law, investigates on the basis of evidence, uses force proportionately and answers for misconduct. Officers at every level need proper training, fair working conditions and confidence that professional conduct—not political loyalty—will shape their careers.

The government must disclose the legal basis and decision-making chain behind the Rana operation. The National Human Rights Commission should complete an impartial inquiry and publish its findings. Police leadership must account for the instructions received and the procedures followed. Whatever the controversies surrounding Rana’s past, they do not diminish his right to due process. The police serve the law, not a party, leader or government. Upholding that principle is essential to the strength of the force and the public’s trust in it.