Dan Bahadur Karki Challenges Removal as Police Chief

Dan Bahadur Karki has challenged the Nepal government's decision to remove him as Inspector General of Police (IGP), seeking reinstatement through a writ petition submitted to the Supreme Court on Thursday, November 5, 2026.

In his petition, Karki has argued that the government removed him from the country's top police position without providing an opportunity to explain his position, violating the principles of natural justice. He has requested the court to overturn the Cabinet's decision and restore him to his previous position.

The petition was submitted through advocate Tikabahadur Kunwar. However, the Supreme Court administration had not registered it as of Thursday, saying that the document was still under examination.

Karki Seeks Immediate Reinstatement

Karki has requested an interim court order preventing the government from implementing its November 4 Cabinet decision until the case is finally resolved.

He has specifically asked the court to allow him to continue working as Inspector General of Police and prevent Manoj Kumar KC from exercising the authority of the police chief while the legal dispute remains pending.

The petition also seeks to invalidate the government's decision to assign Karki to the newly created position of special security adviser to the Prime Minister.

Similarly, Karki has challenged KC's promotion and appointment as IGP, including the official documents, posting arrangements, assumption of office and presentation of the police chief's insignia.

Questions Raised Over Legal Authority

The writ petition also questions the legal authority under which Manoj Kumar KC has assumed the position of Inspector General of Police.

Karki has requested a mandamus order directing the government to allow him to complete the tenure prescribed under Rule 127 of the Nepal Police Regulations, 2014 (2071 BS).

He has also sought restoration of his previous legal status, official records, salary, allowances and other service-related benefits.

In addition, the petition requests a prohibitory order preventing the government from removing him, transferring him to another position, retiring him before the completion of his tenure or appointing another individual to the post without following the legally prescribed grounds and procedures.

Previous Supreme Court Rulings Cited

Karki's legal team has referred to two previous Supreme Court cases in support of its arguments.

The first involves former police chief Achyut Krishna Kharel and Dhruba Bahadur Pradhan. The second concerns former Nepal Electricity Authority executive director Hitendra Dev Shakya and the Nepal government.

According to the arguments presented in the petition, authorities must identify the reasons for removing an individual from an appointed position and provide an opportunity to respond before proceeding with disciplinary action.

The petition further argues that the government cannot avoid legal requirements simply by creating a new position and transferring an existing officeholder to it.

Karki's lawyers have maintained that creating a separate position for him and assigning him there, rather than following the proper removal procedure, reflects improper intent. They argue that the government does not have unrestricted authority to make decisions with such intent.

Hearing Requested on a Priority Basis

The petition also requests priority consideration during the court proceedings, along with interim protection while the case is being decided.

Advocate Kunwar said the petition was submitted in the morning but remained under examination by the Supreme Court administration throughout the day. The administration indicated that a decision regarding registration would be communicated by Friday.

The case could have significant implications for the legal procedures governing the removal and replacement of senior public officials, particularly the Inspector General of Police.

However, the allegations and demands presented in the writ remain claims made by the petitioner. The Supreme Court has yet to register and examine the petition on its merits, and no final judicial determination has been made regarding the legality of the government's decision.