The recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the September 8-9 Gen Z protest crackdown have triggered intense debate over how the government will implement them and what political, legal and international consequences may follow.

Invoking its constitutional authority under Article 249, the commission has recommended legal actions against the prime minister, the home minister, the communications minister and senior security officials in power during the revolt last year for alleged human rights violations while quelling the protests. It has also recommended further investigations against dozens of others linked to the violence.

The commission named 52 individuals, including 17 lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), for investigation over the September 9 incidents. Two groups, including one identified as ‘TOB’, were also recommended for probe and prosecution. According to the commission, incitement by TOB caused violence during the September 8 demonstrations.

The commission concluded that then-prime minister KP Sharma Oli, home minister Ramesh Lekhak and communications minister Prithvi Subba Gurung were involved in human rights violations during the movement. It recommended prosecution against them under Article 249 (2c) of the constitution.

Earlier, the judicial probe commission led by former judge Gauri Bahadur Karki had recommended criminal investigation and prosecution against Oli and Lekhak on homicide charges. Both leaders were subsequently arrested, and investigations against them are ongoing.

While investigations based on the Karki Commission’s report are already underway, the NHRC has separately recommended forming a special court through a new law to hear cases related to the protests.

Some individuals named for investigation have objected to the recommendations, while others have publicly dismissed them as routine political developments.

Debate is ongoing both in public and on social media on whether the recommendations will actually be implemented. Former NHRC member Sudeep Pathak said the commission’s report carries full legal and constitutional weight both inside Nepal and internationally.

“The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also recognises such reports,” he said. “Since the commission is a constitutional body in Nepal, the government is obliged to implement its recommendations.” According to Pathak, the commission will first submit its report to the Prime Minister’s Office, which will then forward it to the Office of the Attorney General for review.

“The Office of the Attorney General can recommend to the government who should face action and whether further investigation is required,” Pathak said. “On the other hand, if the government is dissatisfied with the report, it can hold discussions with the commission.”

Pathak argued that the report cannot simply be ignored, as it was prepared following an investigation into serious human rights violations. “If the government chooses to sideline it instead of taking the process forward, serious questions will be raised against the state,” he said.

He warned that failure to act could damage the government’s image both nationally and internationally on human rights issues. “In the changed context shaped by the Gen Z movement, the elections and the formation of the new government, the commission’s report cannot be simply disregarded,” he said.

Nepal’s human rights situation is regularly reviewed in forums ranging from the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process to other international monitoring mechanisms.

The report will be studied by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and international rights organisations may also raise questions regarding the implementation of the commission’s recommendations. The government may face pressure in future international reviews if it fails to act on the report.

Individuals identified by the commission as human rights violators could also face reputational damage abroad. Legal experts say failure to prosecute domestically may even expose some accused individuals to arrest while travelling overseas under international legal principles.

A prominent example relates to the Maoist conflict period, when Nepali Army Colonel Kumar Lama was arrested in the United Kingdom in 2013 over allegations of torture at a military barracks in Kapilvastu during the insurgency that ended in 2006. Lama later returned to Nepal after diplomatic efforts by the Nepali government, which argued that Nepal’s transitional justice process was already under way and that evidence against him remained insufficient.

Former Supreme Court justice Balaram KC warned that delaying implementation of the commission’s recommendations could have serious implications.

“If the state fails to act, international jurisdiction may become relevant,” said KC. According to him, serving officials are likely to be most directly affected. Their career progression, participation in international seminars, training opportunities and foreign travel could all be impacted.

Personnel of Nepali Army, Nepal Police and Armed Police Force—accused of human rights violations—may also become ineligible for United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Nepal’s security agencies already undergo ‘vetting’ procedures based on recommendations from international human rights organisations. The constitution also authorises the commission to maintain records of individuals who fail to comply with its recommendations.

The commission first received constitutional status through the Interim Constitution of 2007. The National Human Rights Commission Act 2012 further clarified its powers. Article 249(2h) of the constitution states that the commission can publicly identify officials, institutions or individuals who fail to implement its recommendations and maintain records of them as human rights violators.

Section 7 of the act requires that accused individuals be given 15 days to clarify their position before such records are made public. Those records may subsequently influence public appointments, promotions and career development decisions.

Experts say people listed by Nepal’s constitutional human rights body are almost certain to face obstacles under international vetting systems. Vetting refers to restrictions imposed on individuals accused of torture, unlawful killings, rape, illegal detention or other crimes against humanity, preventing them from participating in foreign training, travel or international missions.

How does the government implement the report?

The government can forward the commission’s report to the Office of the Attorney General for implementation and further investigation.

The attorney general may then assign investigators and direct government prosecutors to proceed with criminal inquiries before filing cases in regular courts. However, the government also has the option of creating a separate law and establishing a special court, as recommended by the commission.

Senior advocate Raju Chapagain said the government has two options: it can either proceed with investigations under existing laws or introduce a new law as recommended by the commission. “It is the government’s responsibility to implement the commission’s recommendations. It can do so either through a new law or under existing legal provisions,” he said.

Chapagain said if the government fails to act on the recommendations, the commission itself can blacklist those responsible and hold officials accountable for non-implementation.

“If the government does not implement the recommendations, the commission can also bring human rights violators within the scope of action. The commission has that authority,” he said. “It can place those who fail to implement the recommendations on a blacklist.”

NHRC member Mihir Thakur said the commission did not anticipate non-implementation, particularly because this is the first time in its history that it has recommended prosecution in a human rights violation case. He said the recommendations include matters ranging from drafting legislation to forming courts, and added that if the government fails to act, the commission will move ahead in accordance with constitutional procedures.

“Under Section 17 of the National Human Rights Commission Act 2012, we will wait for three months. If the recommendations are not implemented, we will proceed as per the constitution and the law,” he said.

“But we are confident that the recommendations will be implemented. There is already a constitutional pathway under Article 249(2h) of the constitution and Section 7 of the commission’s law.”

Lily Thapa, coordinator of the Gen Z Incident Study Committee of the NHRC, said the current government itself emerged on the strength of the Gen Z movement, making implementation of the commission’s report almost inevitable.

She said there were concerns that the report might suffer the same fate as past recommendations related to the Madhesh movement, the Gaur massacre, the Doramba killings and other conflict-era human rights violations, many of which were never implemented.

“But this government is rooted in the Gen Z movement itself, so it is under pressure to act,” she said. Thapa warned that if the government again failed to implement the recommendations, the commission could blacklist those responsible under Article 249 of the constitution, potentially drawing international scrutiny as well.

Dispute over recommendation of retrospective law

In its recommendation section, the commission cited the Supreme Court verdict in the transitional justice case of Madhav Kumar Basnet versus Government of Nepal while proposing the enactment of retrospective legislation.

In that case, a full bench comprising then justices Kalyan Shrestha, Girish Chandra Lal and Sushila Karki had extensively interpreted the concept of retrospective law.

No 36 and 37 of the verdict state that grave human rights violations and crimes against humanity are serious offences, and that if existing laws are inadequate to bring perpetrators to justice, the state may enact new legislation to end impunity.

The verdict also notes that international legal principles allowing universal jurisdiction and retrospective laws in cases involving serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity have already evolved.

However, several criminal law experts argue that using the same reasoning to recommend retrospective legislation for the Gen Z incidents could be controversial.

Senior advocate Krishna Prasad Sapkota said such interpretations may be justified in exceptional cases involving crimes against humanity or grave human rights abuses, but warned that applying retrospective laws in ordinary cases could create dangerous precedents.

“If acts that were not crimes at the time are later declared criminal and punished, it could establish a problematic precedent,” he said.

Advocate Subas Acharya also criticised the commission’s recommendation, arguing that it contradicts established principles of criminal law. “No person can be prosecuted, punished or declared a criminal through retrospective legislation,” he said. “This is prohibited not only by Nepal’s constitution but also by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Nepal is a party.”

According to him, punishing individuals through retrospective laws is globally considered contrary to accepted principles of criminal justice.