By P.R. Pradhan

Dr. Phani Raj Pathak, press secretary to former King Gyanendra, and Asmita Bhandari, President of the World Hindu Federation, International Committee, were detained and interrogated by the Kathmandu Police for addressing former King Gyanendra as “Shree Panch.”

The police questioned Bhandari regarding the expenses incurred in celebrating the former King’s 79th birthday on July 7. The police reportedly objected to the use of the title “Shree Panch,” stating that the current constitution does not recognize such a designation for the deposed monarch. After taking a written statement from Dr. Pathak that he would refrain from using the title in the future, both Pathak and Bhandari were released.

However, this incident has sparked widespread criticism and raised fundamental questions regarding tradition, faith, and constitutional interpretation.

In Sanatan tradition, once a king has undergone Abhishek (a sacred consecration ritual by the chief priest), he holds the title of “Shree Panch” for life. There is a long-standing precedent that a king never truly retires. Sanatan customs include the use of honorifics such as “Shree One” for individuals, “Shree Tin” for prime ministers, “Shree Panch” for monarchs, and “Shree Chha” for priests and parents. Furthermore, spiritual figures are often honored as “Shree 108 Maharaj” or “Shree 1008 Maharaj.”

In this context, the use of “Shree Panch” is a matter of religious and cultural tradition—especially at a time when the country is witnessing systemic corruption and misgovernance under what many term as loottantra (kleptocracy). Suppressing such expressions of cultural reverence has raised concern among citizens and political leaders alike.

Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) Chairman Rajendra Lingden and Chief Whip Gyanendra Shahi condemned the arrests, calling them unconstitutional and undemocratic. Lingden emphasized on social media that honorifics such as “Shree Panch,” “Shree 108,” and “Shree 1008” are tied to personal belief and faith—not legal or constitutional restrictions. “A large number of Nepalis still regard King Gyanendra as Shree Panch, and I too respect him as such,” he wrote.

Lingden added that detaining or intimidating people for using such titles is neither political nor republican in spirit.

Gyanendra Shahi echoed similar sentiments, stating, “A king is always a king. No law or constitution can erase the honor bestowed by history, culture, and religion, or the love of the people.” He pointed out that even foreign dignitaries continue to refer to King Gyanendra as His Majesty the King, and challenged the government: “If it has the courage, let it summon those foreign heads of state for questioning.”

Shahi further declared, “Kings are sons of the soil. They are called Shree Panch Maharaj by the people out of love and respect.”

Kamal Thapa, Chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal, reiterated that once someone ascends to the throne, the title remains for life. He urged authorities not to overreact to the use of “Shree Panch” when addressing the former monarch.

Similarly, legal expert Advocate Swagat Nepal opined that using “Shree Panch” does not violate the spirit of the constitution.

Even Christian leader Dr. Kali Bahadur Rokaya weighed in, stating, “I don't think a king ever truly retires. Once a king, always a king.”

Rokaya, after reading about Dr. Pathak’s detention, researched how former monarchs are addressed globally. He found varied traditions: for example, Spain's former monarch is still known as King Juan Carlos I, and King Albert of Belgium retains his title despite no longer being the reigning monarch. In contrast, in the Netherlands, former kings and queens are addressed as princes or princesses.

Rokaya concluded that Nepal lacks any clear legal or constitutional guidelines on how to address former monarchs. There has been no public or parliamentary debate on the matter. Instead of penalizing the use of traditional titles, he argues, the state should consider clarifying or formalizing such customs in the legal framework.