The National Human Rights Commission is preparing to respond to those who have requested documents expressing dissatisfaction with its report on the Gen Z movement of September 8-9 last year. However, the commission does not intend to disclose full details.

After the commission claimed that serious human rights violations occurred during the Gen Z movement and went so far as to recommend prosecution by enacting retroactive laws, those implicated—including the then prime minister KP Sharma Oli, then home minister Ramesh Lekhak, and communications minister Prithvi Subba Gurung—filed applications with the commission.

The NHRC’s report held them responsible for the events of 8 September and recommended legal action against them. Furthermore, the report named Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairman Rabi Lamichhane and several other MPs regarding the events of 9 September.

Questioning the integrity of the report, the disgruntled leaders have taken the matter both to the commission and the Supreme Court. Former prime minister Oli, home minister Lekhak, and communications minister and government spokesperson Prithvi Subba Gurung personally filed applications at the commission. Invoking the Right to Information (RTI) Act, they have demanded to know why and on what evidentiary basis action was recommended against them.

Oli, who is also the UML chairman, filed his application on July 9. UML central committee member Mahesh Bartaula formally registered the application with the NHRC on Oli’s behalf.

The application claims that the recommendation made under the commission's Decision No 177 regarding the events of September 8-9 is biased, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the constitution, prevailing laws, and established international human rights norms and principles. It demands that the recommendation be rectified.

The petition highlights that previously requested documents and copies of the report were not fully provided. It urges the commission to provide a certified copy of the report said to have been submitted to the commission by the probe committee led by Lily Thapa.

Furthermore, the application requests certified copies of all documents detailing which parts of the committee’s report were accepted, which parts were omitted or added by the commission, and the reasons and grounds for such decisions.

Then-home minister Lekhak had also requested information under the RTI Act on June 28, explicitly stating, “Please provide certified copies [of the information].” The application expresses disagreement with the commission's decision labelling him a human rights violator and requests comprehensive details regarding the grounds on which such a label was applied.

Gurung also submitted his application on June 28. Stating that his attention was drawn to news published in various media outlets indicating that he had been blamed for the incident, he requested the NHRC to provide the investigation report.

The application submitted to the commission requests copies of three specific documents to ascertain what kind of report has been prepared regarding the incident. However, the commission has not yet provided any response to the applicants.

Those seeking information have also demanded that the full text of the report submitted to the commission by the committee, coordinated by Commissioner Lily Thapa, be made public. They have stated in their applications that if the commission fails to provide the basis for recommending action against them, they will seek legal remedy.

UML central committee member Bartaula, who submitted Oli’s application, stated that no information or update had been received from the commission so far. He added that if they do not receive the information, legal recourse would be the only option left.

As Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Deepak Bohara has already filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, it is likely that the remaining dissatisfied leaders may follow suit.

Bohara registered his writ petition against the commission in the Supreme Court on June 1, and the court has already issued a show-cause notice.

The top court has also demanded a written response from the commission. Bohara maintains that the report is baseless as he was not present at the protests on September 8-9 but was at a hospital with his wife, and has therefore demanded a court order to remove his name from the report.

What the Human Rights Commission says

As questions continue to be raised over the report, NHRC member Mihir Thakur said that a meeting of the commission's officials would be held to make a decision regarding the sharing of information.

“The commission's decision can be provided to everyone, but the details contained in the investigation report will not be made public immediately,” Thakur said. “The reason for not making it public is the protection of witnesses and the right to privacy.”

Commission member Thapa, who led the investigation, also stated that any information or documents that can be legally provided under the Right to Information Act would be given within the stipulated 15 days, following a decision by the board of officials.

It would take a few days because a meeting of the commission’s officials must first determine whether the requested documents can be legally released.

“Some matters are related to serious violations of human rights. The commission itself will decide what can and cannot be shared,” Thakur added.

The report was made public on May 27 and forwarded to the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. The commission stated that it would wait three months for the implementation of the report. Commission member Thakur said that if the government fails to make a decision within three months, the law empowers the commission to blacklist individuals or initiate other legal proceedings. However, no such discussions have been held.

Speculations are rife that the government might be delaying its decision because the report explicitly names 15 members of parliament and RSP chairman Lamichhane, among others.