In Nepal, there is a huge gap between the legal sources of income of people who have reached high levels of political and administrative life and their lifestyle. Although this is not certain to be true for every person, it is a matter that Nepali society has experienced. At the same time, reports published by international and national organizations on corruption and good governance also highlight these issues. In the 2025 report of Transparency International, Nepal has been ranked 109th with a Corruption Perception Index (CPI) score of only 34.

Therefore, it is felt that a tough fight against corruption has become inevitable in Nepal. For that, there have been calls for a strong commission to investigate the assets of people who have reached high levels of political and civil service administration for the last few decades. The newly formed government has taken an initiative by forming a commission. Now many issues will depend on the performance of the commission and the government's intentions.

Wednesday's meeting of the Council of Ministers formed a five-member commission under the coordination of former Supreme Court Justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari. It is said that the Assets Inquiry Commission has been formed to collect, verify and investigate the assets of key political office bearers and high-ranking employees who held public office from 2062/63 to 2082/83. The commission includes former Justice Purushottam Parajuli, former Justice Chandiraj Dhakal, former Deputy Inspector General of Police Ganesh KC and Chartered Accountant Prakash Lamsal.

The formation of the commission has been in line with public expectations. However, since government spokesperson Sasmit Pokharel only mentioned 'key political office bearers and high-ranking employees', many issues are not clear. Therefore, the government should clarify which positions will fall under the purview of this commission. On the other hand, the term of the commission and the process for implementing its recommendations are also not clear. That should also be disclosed. Overall, Nepali society should be aware of the full mandate of the commission.

There is dissatisfaction in society because some sections of society have made a lot of money by misusing their official positions despite having limited income. Such a situation has, on the one hand, increased class inequality in society, and on the other hand, it has created obstacles in the equal distribution of opportunities such as quality education, health, personality development, employment, and income. Similarly, there is a situation where those who have reached the highest levels of the political and administrative sectors through corruption and irregularities are not being punished. This has created an environment where honest people are discouraged.

Similarly, due to abuse of office, the pace of development and prosperity has slowed down. As a result, citizens have not been able to benefit from development. The right to a quality life is also being violated. But the government's fight against corruption has not been effective. The role of government agencies has also not been strengthened. On the one hand, corruption has flourished, and on the other hand, the fight against it was weakening. Therefore, a strong campaign is needed to end corruption. The Commission has filled that gap.

With the formation of the Commission, a continuity has been disrupted. We can hope for positive results from it. But there are also some questions that the government should clarify. First, the time frame that has been set from 2062/63 to 2082/83. What is the basis for that? The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had said in its manifesto that it would investigate the assets of people holding important public positions since 2046 BS. But the government has given priority to the period after 2062/63. This period is the period of the democratic republic. It cannot be denied that corruption occurred during this period as well.

However, corruption existed in Nepal in all periods. But by ignoring the previous period and giving priority to the period after 2062/62, it seems that an attempt is being made to send a political message that everything went wrong after the democratic republic, and that this is the corrupt system. If not, the government should clarify this. Or, another commission can be formed immediately to investigate after 2046 BS for the implementation according to the RSS manifesto. It would be even more appropriate if the Panchayat period could also be investigated.

Similarly, such a commission was formed in the past to intimidate the political leadership. For example, after the then King Gyanendra took the lead in the government through a 'coup', he tried to make political leaders appear corrupt so that they would not raise their voices against him. He had set up a 'kangaroo court' called the Royal Commission. Which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. There is a practice of adopting such a process especially to undermine the role of the opposition. It cannot be said that the current government has the same ambition as King Gyanendra.

However, there are honest people in society, they have reached political and administrative leadership. It must be ensured that such people are not intimidated. We must be careful not to allow the social psychology of 'everyone is corrupt' to be created. Political bias should not be seen more. Not only will it be counterproductive, the great fight against corruption will also be ruined. Another disappointment will be created.

The government will form a commission but its report has also been hidden. The report of the commission led by Judge Bhairav ​​Prasad Lamsal, formed in Falgun 2058, was hidden. If that report had been made public and implemented, many corrupt and illiquid assets would have been taken into action two decades ago. It would have brought about many improvements in the political and administrative sectors. But with the report being hidden, the trend of high-ranking officials committing corruption and not being taken into action continued.

This time, this tradition must end. There is another answer that the government must give – why were the government’s initiatives against corruption not successful? Why were the investigations and prosecutions of mechanisms including the Authority not strengthened? How did the newly formed government realize their incompetence? In the coming days, a concrete plan by the government is indispensable in terms of making the regular mechanism active and effective. Working constantly on external commissions cannot develop the credibility, image and efficiency of constitutional institutions.