The inquiry commission led by Gauri Bahadur Karki, formed to investigate the repression and human losses during the Gen-G movement, has submitted its report to the government, but it has not yet been formally made public. However, the report has been widely circulated in the media.

Meanwhile, claims like ‘so-and-so recommended to be imprisoned for so-and-so’ are spreading widely. But, can an inquiry commission really sentence someone to prison? Can they be detained based on the report? How far does the commission’s authority extend? A simple and fact-based answer to these questions:

What is an inquiry commission?

According to the Inquiry Commission Act, 2026, the state or federal government can form an inquiry commission to investigate any issue. The government has also been forming inquiry commissions as needed to investigate incidents or issues of public importance. The formation of such commissions falls under the executive power of the government. That is, they are formed according to the will of the government.

According to Section 4 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 2026, the work of the commission is limited to the mandate given by the government. For example, it can be said that 'what happened in an incident, why it happened, who played what role, and what should be improved in the future' is studied and recommended.

Therefore, the Commission of Inquiry is not a body that dispenses justice but a mechanism for finding facts.

The Commission of Inquiry led by Gauri Bahadur Karki was given three main responsibilities by publishing a notice in the Gazette on 5 Asoj.

The first is to investigate the damage caused during the protests on 23 and 24 Bhadra, the second is to find out the cause of the incident and submit a report with suggestions, and the third is to suggest measures to prevent such incidents from recurring in the future.

Can the commission impose a prison sentence on anyone?

It cannot. The commission does not have the legal and constitutional authority to convict anyone or impose a sentence. According to the universally accepted and universal principles of criminal justice, only the judicial body, i.e. the court, has the right to convict and punish someone.

The Commission of Inquiry does not have such a right. Therefore, claims like '10 years imprisonment recommendation' that have now appeared on social media and some media are not legally correct.

What has the Supreme Court said in the past about the jurisdiction of the Commission of Inquiry?

After the 2062/63 people's movement, a five-member Commission of Inquiry was formed under the leadership of Krishnajung Rayamajhi. A case was filed in the Supreme Court against the report of the Commission at that time. For that, the Supreme Court had formed a special bench consisting of five judges.

In its decision on 10 Asoj 2064, the Supreme Court had set a precedent that the Commission of Inquiry cannot convict. Nepal Kanun Patrika Decision No. . 7866, 2064, it is stated that, 'In order to convict any person, the body that convicts such a person must have the authority under the law.' At that time, the Supreme Court had mainly said five things about the jurisdiction of the Commission of Inquiry.

First, the Commission is not a judicial body: The Supreme Court said, 'A commission involving persons other than the sitting judges and the opinion report it gives cannot be considered as a judicial act and given recognition accordingly.' (Case No. 7)

Second, the work of the Commission is limited to finding facts: The opinion, suggestion or report given by the Commission... seems to be limited to finding out the truth. (Case No. 12)

Third, the government is not obliged to implement the report: Whether or not to implement the report given by the Commission, and even if it does, how to do so depends on the government that constitutes the Commission. (Case No. 19)

Fourth, action cannot be taken outside the limits of the law: The government cannot take any action against anyone based on a report beyond the limits of the law. (Case No. 19)

Fifth, the commission is only a recommender: The commission formed under the Commission of Inquiry Act is purely to collect information, conduct research and act as a recommender. (Case No. 19)

So what can the commission do?

According to Section 4 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, the government can collect facts, analyze evidence and present suggestions on the issues specified. That is, the role of the commission is limited to making recommendations only. It collects facts and evidence, analyzes incidents, points out those deemed responsible, cites relevant sections of the law and recommends that an investigation/prosecution should be carried out.

For example, recent reports have revealed that the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak and Police Chief Chandrakuber Khapung have been recommended for investigation under Sections 181 and 182 of the Criminal Code. This does not mean that they have been found guilty, it is only that they should be brought under the scope of investigation.

Will action be taken directly based on the report?

Not directly, but the process can begin. After the commission's report comes, further investigation should be carried out according to the legal process. To look at it point by point,

- First, the government studies the report

- Then, if necessary, it directs the police to investigate

- The police collect evidence and investigate

- Then, the government prosecutor files a case in court

- Only then, the court decides whether the person is guilty or innocent and imposes punishment

Does the report have any legal significance?

Although the report of the commission of inquiry is not binding, it is not completely meaningless. The Supreme Court itself has said that the commission's report 'can be used as a basis for legal or other action'. There are examples in Nepal's history of various state bodies taking action based on the recommendations of the commission of inquiry. According to the report of the commission of inquiry on the control of illegal import (smuggling) of gold, the police conducted further investigation and took the case forward.

In particular, the report can do three things. First, it can determine the moral accountability of which person for not fulfilling what responsibility. Second, it can create political pressure - public opinion and political pressure can increase on the people named in the report. Third, the investigative agencies can use the facts and evidence mentioned in the report as a starting point to conduct further investigation, so that the report can become the basis for legal action.

What can happen now? What is the process?

The commission has already submitted the report to the government. There are three possible paths after this. First: The government can officially make the report public. Second: The government can direct the police, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, or the Attorney General's Office to initiate further investigation based on the recommendation. And, third: The government can also suspend the report without implementing it.