Government Faces Pressure to Implement After Leak of Commission Report on Janajati Movement
Photo source, EPA
After the sudden leak of the report by the commission investigating the Janajati movement on Wednesday via the media, the government, feeling pressured, decided the same day to formally archive and make the report public through the Federal Parliament Secretariat’s library.
The sensitive report, originally believed to be exclusively in the government and commission’s possession, began to be disseminated in fragments, prompting meetings at the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers’ office throughout the day.
Hemraj Aryal, spokesperson for the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers’ office, stated: “An investigation will be conducted into how information marked confidential was leaked. It remains undecided who will lead this inquiry.”
A constitutional expert warns that the leak could make it difficult for the government to implement the report in a planned manner and risks creating pressure from public sentiment.
“Public perception does not always support the rule of law or the structure of our penal system when it comes to enforcement,” said Kathmandu University law professor Bipin Adhikari.
He added, “The government was expected to maintain the utmost confidentiality, conduct a thorough study, and gradually implement the report. However, its sudden exposure to the public and immediate street discussions before forming a serious opinion, with people questioning its legitimacy, raises concerns about how the government can properly execute the report.”
Concerns
Photo source, Skanda Gautam/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Legal experts have expressed concern that the commission’s recommendations should have been accompanied by the government’s related viewpoints, which were absent.
Law expert Bipin Adhikari explains that with the report leaking in this way, there is now an uncomfortable situation where people ask, “Who do we now ask for answers to these questions?”
Prime Minister and Council of Ministers’ Office spokesperson Hemraj Aryal also acknowledged the concerns that “there could definitely be difficulties in implementation” after the report leaked prior to the government’s official release.
Officials agree that releasing such a report to the public before further investigations and inspections are completed can lead to misunderstandings.
However, spokesperson Aryal suggested that “a report from any commission does not immediately result in implementation.”
“Based on the report, the government will conduct further studies and proceed with additional actions if necessary,” he said.
The commission, led by former Justice Gauribahadur Karki, formed to investigate the events of the Janajati movement last Bhadra (August/September) and the alleged government suppression, was initially given three months to complete its work.
However, the commission requested deadline extensions multiple times — one month the first time, 20 days the second, and 25 days the third — before submitting the report to the government after elections.
Government’s Unreleased Summary
Photo source, PMO
Prime Minister Sushila Karki had stated on Falgun 24 (March 7) that after receiving Justice Gauribahadur Karki’s commission report, the “government itself would publicize the summary.”
“Although all details might not be made public due to security reasons, our government will release the summary,” she had said, citing the Prime Minister at the time.
Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari explains that although the Karki-led government might not have been able to clarify many issues, having spoken “with the authority of governance,” the leak has now deprived the government of that opportunity.
Prime Minister Karki mentioned that both she and the Home Minister studied the report and presented it to the Council of Ministers on Chaitra 1 (mid-March), where it was accepted in the meeting.
However, Adhikari believes that the government should have issued a formal statement from its side.
He also commented that without completing a thoughtful process to reassure the public with statements like “a new government is coming and will be responsible for implementation,” the situation has worsened.
“The government’s options become increasingly limited, and advancing under public pressure is never ideal,” he added.
Questions of Confidentiality and Implementation
Adhikari also voiced specific concerns about “state confidentiality.”
“Our security agencies are involved, meaning that some matters are sensitive; some require legislation and enforcement; some need legal amendments; and some demand cabinet decisions. This requires not just a legal basis but also rationale-driven decisions,” said Adhikari.
“Certain issues must remain confidential now and be addressed in a long-term manner. The state’s right to select what to disclose has been compromised. Therefore, questions arise about why and who leaked the report.”
He emphasized the importance of investigating the leak.
Adhikari noted that regular procedures can still be initiated in cases involving criminal law violations.
“A police case won’t start automatically just because of the report. The government attorney’s office and police will study it and launch investigations as per law and procedure,” he said.
“This will be a time-consuming process. The report does not imply immediate arrests.”