The report study committee formed by the Nepali Congress has questioned the report of the inquiry commission led by former judge Gauri Bahadur Karki, which was formed to investigate the Gen-Nee movement and demonstrations on 23 and 24 Bhadra.

The committee, formed under the coordination of senior advocate Yadunath Khanal, included former judge Krishna Prasad Poudel, advocate Binod Karki, Ramchandra (RC) Gautam and young activist Yajaswi Rai. The committee submitted its report on 3 Baisakh.

Although the original mandate of the Karki Commission in the report was to conduct a factual investigation of the incidents of 23 and 24 Bhadra, the committee claims that the report has entered into political and structural issues. This is not entirely in line with the spirit of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 2026, which limits the scope of the commission. ‘The report seems to have focused more on the incident of Bhadra 23 and not to have done a sufficient, in-depth and balanced analysis of the serious human and material losses of Bhadra 24. From which the report seems incomplete,’ the report’s suggestions section says, ‘The Karki Commission seems to have paid disproportionate attention to political parties and other structural issues in its report instead of focusing on questions such as the main events of the movement, damage, causes, weaknesses in the security system, and the role of responsible officials. As a result, the report of the commission formed for the direct investigation of the Gen-G movement gradually seems to have become a kind of ‘overall governance reform report’.’

Although some of the conclusions presented by the commission are important on a factual basis, it is claimed that the imbalance of the analysis, expansion beyond the mandate, and incompleteness in some issues have created a situation where the overall question of the report is raised.

‘The opinion given by the commission after collecting some facts cannot have any final recognition like a judicial decision.’ The main reason for this is that when such a commission starts the investigation process, there is neither any accusation, nor any defense, nor is there any disagreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, nor is there a process for the parties to present their statements for its examination,' the report says, 'Such an act cannot/will not bring any legal consequences such as a judicial decision on the established rights or obligations of anyone on the basis of the report with definite conclusions.' The report states that the government cannot take any action against anyone based solely on reports including opinions and suggestions, going beyond the scope of the law. The report states that the report of the inquiry commission will provide guidance to the government on whether or not to take any action and, if so, how to take action. ‘The commission of inquiry formed under the executive authority cannot convict anyone. When the commission of inquiry itself cannot directly convict anyone, it cannot be assumed that the legislative law can indirectly convict anyone based on the report of the same commission by recognizing it as a judicial decision,’ the report says. ‘Instead, since such reports prepared by the Human Rights Commission are considered important internationally, their impact is likely to be widespread.’