Changing the Inspector General: Institutions Run on Law, Not Orders

The government’s decision to remove Nepal Police Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki and appoint Manoj Kumar KC goes beyond an administrative reshuffle. It raises questions about the police force’s institutional independence, the transparency of government decisions and the state’s commitment to the rule of law. The government says Karki has been assigned to serve as the prime minister’s special security adviser. But creating a new post and transferring him there does not answer the questions raised by his removal unless the government clearly explains the grounds and procedure behind its decision.

The government says Karki was not disciplined but given a different responsibility. The effect of a decision, however, matters more than the title of the new post. Removing a serving inspector general before the end of his tenure and appointing another officer as police chief cannot be treated as an ordinary transfer or redistribution of duties. If the government was dissatisfied with Karki’s performance, it should explain what he did, which standards were applied and what legal process was followed. Allegations or dissatisfaction alone are not enough; fair administration requires giving the officer concerned an opportunity to respond.

The decision came amid public allegations linking the investigation into Inam Sapkota to the Prime Minister’s Office. Reports that journalists were detained or summoned to the police while covering the issue had also fuelled discussion about tensions between the government and the police leadership. The government defended the police action, saying misleading information had been circulated. But the action against journalists and the abrupt change in police leadership cannot simply be treated as unrelated events. The government must answer the questions raised by the timing and process of its decisions. The allegations have not been established by an investigation, but any attempt to obstruct or influence an impartial inquiry would deepen suspicion.

The police force is not the private instrument of any government or political party. Public confidence in the impartiality of the institution responsible for investigating crime, maintaining public order and enforcing the law is its greatest strength. If police leadership begins to change according to political preferences or the calculations of the government in power, the consequences will extend beyond one officeholder. Officers further down the chain of command may feel compelled to follow political signals rather than the law. Such a force risks providing impartial service to the public while conducting investigations that favour those in power.

Nepal’s judicial history does not treat arbitrary changes to police leadership as an ordinary administrative prerogative. In an earlier case challenging the removal of an inspector general without sufficient grounds, the Supreme Court ruled that such a move was inconsistent with the rule of law. Karki has now submitted a petition to the Supreme Court challenging the government’s decision, but reports say it has not yet been registered and remains under review. Before the court rules on the legal questions, the government should make clear the grounds for its decision and the relevant legal provisions.

This does not mean that police leadership should be exempt from accountability. If evidence shows that an officer has violated the law or failed to fulfil official duties, there should be an investigation and, where warranted, disciplinary or legal action. But that requires clear allegations, evidence, an opportunity to be heard and an established procedure. Following due process does not weaken the government; it strengthens public trust in state institutions.

The government should publicly explain why it removed Karki, what criteria it used to appoint the new inspector general and the legal basis for the actions taken against journalists. Clear standards are also needed to shield the appointment and removal of police chiefs from political pressure. Otherwise, there will be a lasting concern that each change of government could bring a change in police leadership and the direction of investigations.

In a democracy, the government has the authority to make decisions, but that authority is constrained by law and accountability. In this case, the government should provide transparent grounds for its decision and respect the court’s process. The strength of the state is measured not only by its power to make decisions, but also by its willingness to subject those decisions to law, evidence and public accountability.