- Nepal’s Supreme Court demanded a formal explanation regarding the failure to investigate Nepal Airlines’ purchase of six Chinese aircraft.
- A public-interest activist alleges the grounded planes caused billions in state losses due to unsuitable operational capabilities.
- The court granted legal priority to the case, requiring responses from the Prime Minister’s office and anti-corruption agencies.
(NEPAL) — Nepal’s Supreme Court has ordered the government and multiple named agencies to explain why no investigation has been launched into Nepal Airlines Corporation‘s purchase of six Chinese-built aircraft. Justice Bal Krishna Dhakal issued the order on June 26, 2026.
The writ petition was filed by chartered accountant and public-interest activist Bhesh Raj Luintel. He alleges that the procurement caused billions of rupees in state losses. The petition seeks an independent probe, accountability for officials involved, and recovery of public funds.
The court granted the case legal priority. Merits hearings will begin after the government files written responses.
The aircraft at the center of the dispute are six Chinese-made MA60 and Y12E planes, purchased between 2014 and 2018 with Chinese grant and loan support. The total procurement cost amounted to 6.66 billion Nepalese rupees. Nepal Airlines stopped operating the aircraft in 2020, according to reporting by The Kathmandu Post. The planes have remained grounded since then.
The petition names several high-level government bodies as respondents. These include the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), and the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation. Also named are the Ministry of Finance and Nepal Airlines Corporation.
The CIAA, Nepal’s constitutional anti-corruption body, holds primary authority to investigate abuse of authority by public officials. Its inclusion as a respondent is significant because the petition asks the court to direct the CIAA to act on allegations it has not pursued.
Luintel’s petition alleges that the aircraft were unsuitable for Nepal’s aviation requirements. The MA60, a twin-turboprop regional airliner, and the Y12E, a light utility transport, reportedly could not serve Nepal’s mountainous terrain and short-runway airstrips effectively. The petition contends that the procurement generated heavy financial losses through parking fees, maintenance costs, insurance premiums, staffing, and related expenditures.
With operations halted since 2020, the grounded aircraft continue to accrue costs without generating revenue.
The petition also seeks production of a broad set of procurement and financial documents. These include feasibility studies conducted before the purchase, financial evaluations of the deal, loan agreements with Chinese lenders, and Cabinet and Nepal Airlines board decisions authorizing the procurement. The demand for these records suggests the petition aims to establish whether proper procurement procedures were followed and whether decision-makers had adequate basis for the purchases.
The Supreme Court’s order requires each named respondent to submit a written explanation. The court will then proceed to substantive hearings on whether the allegations warrant formal investigation and judicial intervention. The decision to grant legal priority accelerates the procedural timeline, though no specific deadline for the government’s response has been publicly announced.
The case raises questions about public procurement oversight in Nepal, particularly regarding deals financed through foreign grant and loan packages. The aircraft were supplied under agreements tied to Chinese development assistance, which typically bundles concessional loans with grant elements. Nepal’s Public Procurement Act requires feasibility assessments, competitive processes, and post-procurement accountability for publicly funded acquisitions.
The CIAA’s inaction to date forms the central procedural question before the court. If the court finds sufficient basis in the allegations, it could order the CIAA or another investigative body to launch a formal probe. It could also compel document production and direct recovery proceedings against officials found responsible for losses.
The petition’s framing as a public-interest writ gives the court broad remedial authority. Under Nepal’s constitutional framework, the Supreme Court may issue necessary orders to enforce fundamental rights and correct governmental inaction. The court’s willingness to require explanations from the Prime Minister’s office and the CIAA indicates that it takes the allegations seriously.
Parties named in the petition must now prepare written responses addressing the court’s inquiry. The government’s explanation will likely address the procedural status of any internal reviews and the CIAA’s rationale for not investigating. The financial and operational history of the aircraft acquisition will also come under scrutiny. The case’s trajectory depends on the sufficiency of those responses and the court’s assessment of whether further investigation is warranted.
⚠️ Note: No specific filing deadline has been set for the government’s written response. The court will establish the procedural timeline after respondents submit their explanations.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
