Savita Bhandari, appointed as the Attorney General by Prime Minister Sushila Karki, has been embroiled in controversy since the beginning of her term. She has been embroiled in controversy after she decided not to prosecute a private company, Hope Fertility and Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., accused of selling a teenager's eggs.

What is the background to his activism on the issue of direct conflict of interest? We have tried to explain in five questions and answers why this was a sensitive issue and what the allegations against him are.

What are the allegations against Hope Fertility?  

The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police had launched an investigation on Ashad 10 on the charge of selling the eggs of a teenager. Hope Fertility was accused of extracting the eggs of a teenager by offering financial inducements and using them for commercial purposes. The investigation also found that a middleman woman was taking some teenagers to Hope for the purpose of extracting eggs. The teenagers had given statements that they had their eggs extracted for 10,000 rupees each. The victim teenager had said that she was kept for 9 to 10 days with injections. Later, after the eggs developed, they were removed through a minor surgery and 'preserved'. In this incident, the CIB had registered a complaint for crimes against children and taken Justina Pradhan and Alisa Wali under control for investigation. They were later released on remand. 

Where did the investigation into this incident reach the Attorney General's Office?

Actually, this case should have been filed in the District Court, Kathmandu. But the District Attorney's Office concluded that the case should not be prosecuted, saying that there was no law to file a charge sheet. The District Attorney's Office sent the same opinion to the High Attorney's Office for approval. The High Attorney's Office approved the same opinion and sent it to the Attorney General's Office. The decision not to prosecute the case was approved by the Deputy Attorney General's Office, based on the opinions received from two levels. 

Speaking to Kantipur, Deputy Attorney General Sanjeev Raj Regmi said that the case was not prosecuted as there was no charge under Section 62 of the Children's Act and no other law was found. He claimed that this decision was made because there was no law to prove the crime and to charge. "No law seems to have been violated in the said incident. The decision was made in accordance with the practice of government prosecutors who file charge sheets that are not proven by law," Regmi said. He also said that if the opinion of the district and high government prosecutors' offices is not satisfied, they can go to the higher court and overturn it. 

Why was Attorney General Bhandari dragged into the controversy?

Initially, her decision was dragged into controversy after news came out that Bhandari's daughter Dr. Pratyusha Baral was working at Hope Fertility and Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and her maternal grandmother was the chairperson of the board of directors. Online News.com

had made public that 46,000 founder shares were held in Bhandari's name. Attorney General Savita Bhandari has also admitted that she has shares in the company. As mentioned in the share records of Hope Fertility, Savita Bhandari owns 46,000 founder shares. She has a 23 percent share in this company with a total paid-up capital of Rs 20 million. However, she claimed that she did not exert any pressure to decide not to prosecute despite her investment. She has also claimed that the decision not to prosecute was made at the Deputy Attorney General's level and that she came to know about it only later.  Have other decisions made by the Attorney General not to prosecute cases also been drawn into controversy?

In the past, there have been several decisions from the Attorney General's office not to prosecute cases. Most of them have been controversial. The Attorney General's Office has been embroiled in controversy over the Attorney General's decision not to prosecute cases ranging from Ravi Lamichhane's passport dispute to the performance evaluation of Nawaraj Silwal, who was in the running to become the then Inspector General of Police. Similarly, the Attorney General had made a similar controversial decision in the case of Maoist leader Pancha Singh, who was facing a case related to the killing industry. The Attorney General had also decided not to prosecute the accused in the case of Dailekh journalist Dekendra Thapa, who was murdered during the conflict.