KATHMANDU: The inclusion of Satish Lal Acharya among the defendants in the Smart Telecom auction case has sparked allegations that the prosecution was influenced by pressure from government authorities and discriminatory intent rather than by an objective assessment of the evidence.
Supporters and legal sources familiar with the matter claim that Acharya was singled out despite the involvement of multiple institutions, corporate entities and officials in the auction process. They argue that the case has raised serious concerns about selective prosecution and unequal treatment of individuals connected to Nepal’s telecommunications sector.
Acharya, widely regarded as one of Nepal’s successful businessmen and currently serving as a director of Ncell Axiata Nepal, was named as a defendant in the case filed by the District Government Attorney’s Office, Kathmandu, on the basis of an investigation report prepared by the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB). He had previously served as a director of Smart Telecom.
The dispute centers on the auction of Smart Telecom’s assets after the company’s operating license automatically expired on April 16, 2023. Under existing legal provisions, the assets of a company whose license has been revoked were required to pass to government ownership. Police later launched an investigation alleging collusion in the transfer of those assets to Ncell, and on May 14 the CIB seized documents from Ncell’s headquarters in Nakkhu, Lalitpur, formally initiating the investigation.
Following nearly three months of inquiry, the CIB submitted its report to the government attorney on August 7, recommending prosecution of 22 individuals and seeking approximately Rs 96 billion in damages. The case was subsequently registered in the District Court Kathmandu.
Those named in the case include current and former officials associated with Smart Telecom and Ncell, foreign directors linked to Ncell Axiata, former Nepal Telecommunications Authority chairman Bhupendra Bhandari, and several officials of Nepal Investment Mega Bank, including its chief executive officer and other senior office bearers.
Sources argue that the broad institutional nature of the transaction makes the focus on Acharya appear disproportionate. They maintain that decisions related to the auction involved corporate, banking and regulatory processes extending far beyond the role of any single individual. According to them, the prosecution has created the impression that certain individuals are being treated differently from others involved in the same chain of events, despite Acharya, his wife Bhawana Singh Shrestha and his brother Sashin Lal Acharya having created jobs and provided employment to thousands of people in dozens of countries, including Nepal.
Sources also claim that the broad institutional nature of the transaction makes the focus on Acharya appear disproportionate. They maintain that decisions related to the auction involved corporate, banking and regulatory processes extending far beyond the role of any single individual. According to them, the prosecution has created the impression that certain individuals are being treated differently from others who were involved in the same chain of events.
Their concerns have been reinforced by reports of internal disagreements within the Kathmandu District Attorney’s Office. According to sources familiar with the matter, several government attorneys questioned whether parts of the CIB report were adequately supported by evidence and whether some of the legal grounds for prosecution were sustainable. The same sources said some justifications appeared prejudicial and lacked a sufficiently clear legal basis.
Additional concern has emerged from reports that prosecutors faced unusual pressure to proceed with the case despite reservations about the legal foundation and evidentiary strength of some allegations. Sources have claimed that government attorneys were encouraged to move forward with the prosecution even though they believed certain aspects of the investigation required further examination.
Legal observers say these reported disagreements are significant because government attorneys are legally empowered to independently assess police investigation reports, seek additional investigation, revise claims or decline to proceed with charges if the available evidence is considered insufficient.
Critics of the prosecution argue that the combination of alleged institutional pressure, internal prosecutorial reservations and the broad scope of the case has deepened concerns that factors beyond the evidence may have influenced the decision to prosecute Acharya. They say the issue is not only about the Smart Telecom auction but also about whether prosecutions are being conducted through an independent legal process.
Authorities, however, maintain that the case is based on the findings of the CIB investigation and that the matter will now be determined through the judicial process. The government attorney’s office has proceeded with the prosecution on the basis of the investigation report submitted by the police.
As the court process begins, allegations of bias, selective prosecution and political pressure are expected to remain central to the wider debate surrounding the Smart Telecom investigation. For many observers, the case has become a broader test of prosecutorial independence, equal application of the law and public confidence in the fairness of high-profile financial and regulatory investigations in Nepal.
