Two commissions, two conclusions: how the Karki Commission and the NHRC differ

Two major reports have been published on 8–9 September. Both point to Oli and Lekhak, but they differ in many ways.

	Karki Commission	NHRC
Nature	Government-formed judicial inquiry	Constitutional body
Date	Submitted 8 March 2026	Published 27 May 2026
Focus	Mainly the 8 September shootings	Both 8 and 9 September
Oli, Lekhak	Action under Sections 181–182	Named human rights violators
Prithvi Subba Gurung	—	Named human rights violator
Rabi Lamichhane, RSP leaders	Jailor’s statement recorded, no recommendation	Further investigation
Gauri Bahadur Karki	Commission chair	Further investigation
9 September arson	Admits insufficient evidence	Points to infiltration by groups like TOB
Army	Departmental action for lower commanders	Failed to prevent damage; initially uncooperative

What does it mean?

Each report raises questions about the other’s credibility. The Karki report was submitted before the change of government, and the new government made arrests on its basis; the NHRC also put leaders of the new ruling party on its investigation list. Former Bar president Gopal Krishna Ghimire has suggested a high-level commission led by a sitting Supreme Court justice to examine both.

For victims’ families the key question is the same: who gave the order to fire, and when will that be answered in court?

Two commissions, two conclusions: how the Karki Commission and the NHRC differ

What does it mean?

Response from those concerned

Sources & evidence

Related

From “choose the capable” to “choose our own”? The questions over appointments