KATHMANDU: The three-member Karki Commission, chaired by former Special Court judge Gauri Bahadur Karki with members ex-AIG Bigyanraj Sharma and lawyer Bishweshwar Prasad Bhandari, was formed by the Council of Ministers on September 21, 2025 under the Commission of Inquiry Act. It probed the violent Gen Z-led protests on September 8–9, 2025 triggered by a government social media ban and widespread corruption allegations. The protests escalated into clashes killing 76 people, injuring over 2,500, and causing Rs 85 billion in damage. After extensions, the report (including annexes) was submitted to interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki on March 8, 2026. It remains unreleased amid public pressure, but leaks recommend criminal probes against top officials.

The report separates Day 1 (September 8) state response from Day 2 (September 9) anarchy, blames leadership failures, and proposes systemic reforms.

What exactly was the Karki Commission investigating?

The commission was tasked with establishing facts on human and material losses during the Gen Z protests, identifying causes, perpetrators, and accountability. It examined the government’s social media ban decision on September 4, 2025, the peaceful march turning violent at Maitighar–Baneshwar, police firing, and the subsequent nationwide arson/looting on September 9.

Using field visits to 13 hard-hit districts, 200+ statements, CCTV, BTS data, autopsies, and ballistic reports, it concluded the root causes were corruption, poor governance, and the ban itself, not just “Gen Z unrest.” It rejected claims of foreign or organized conspiracy while noting opportunistic criminal elements on Day 2.

What were the key casualty and damage figures?

The report confirms 76 deaths: 42 from police firing (mostly protesters), 3 police killed by mobs, and the rest during looting. Over 2,522 were injured (including security personnel). Property damage totaled ~Rs 85 billion, targeting government buildings, party offices, private homes of leaders (including KP Oli’s), and businesses.

It breaks this down by province, noting Kathmandu Valley bore the brunt on September 8 while violence spread nationwide on September 9.

Autopsy and ballistic analysis linked most fatalities to live ammunition used without adequate non-lethal alternatives.

What triggered the protests on September 8?

The immediate trigger was the government’s ban on 26 unregistered social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, X, etc.) to curb “undesirable content” and enforce registration. Gen Z youth framed this as an attack on free speech and livelihood (content creation).

Deeper grievances—corruption, unemployment, inequality—amplified it. The report notes the march from Maitighar was initially peaceful but escalated when police used water cannons and batons near Parliament; protesters responded with stones.

It criticizes the government for underestimating youth anger and failing to engage.

How did September 8 differ from September 9?

September 8 involved state-protester clashes: police firing caused most deaths; the commission finds disproportionate force and command failures.

September 9 saw opportunistic looting, arson, and attacks on police after the initial protest energy dissipated.

The report states Gen Z did not orchestrate September 9 violence—criminal elements and “looters” exploited the chaos. It recommends treating the two days separately for accountability: command responsibility for September 8, criminal investigation for September 9 perpetrators.

Who does the report indict and what penalties does it recommend?

It recommends criminal proceedings under the Muluki Criminal Code against then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, and IGP Chandra Kuber Khapung for negligence leading to deaths—suggesting up to 10 years imprisonment and fines.

Lower-level officials, including some CDOs and police commanders, face 3-year terms. It flags failure to deploy non-lethal options, lack of de-escalation strategy, and political pressure on security forces.

No blanket immunity; even organizers face scrutiny for failing to control crowds.

What did former PM KP Oli testify before the commission?

Oli appeared and defended the social media ban as lawful and necessary for regulation. He claimed the protests were hijacked by anti-state elements and that he directed proportionate force.

The report notes his statement acknowledged the need for an inquiry but downplayed command responsibility. Commissioners questioned him on cabinet decisions, intelligence failures, and why non-lethal crowd control was not prioritized.

His testimony is cited in the analysis of political decision-making that escalated tensions.

What was Ramesh Lekhak’s testimony as then-Home Minister?

Lekhak testified he followed cabinet directives and relied on police briefings. He denied ordering excessive force and claimed intelligence underestimated the crowd size.

The commission challenged him on the absence of a clear operational plan and failure to activate National Security Council protocols.

His statement is critiqued in the report for shifting blame to field commanders while accepting overall ministerial oversight responsibility. It forms part of the basis for recommending action against him for command negligence.

What role and testimony did Chandra Kuber Khapung (then-IGP) provide?

Khapung detailed operational orders, claiming police acted in self-defense after stones were thrown. He justified live rounds due to perceived threats to Parliament.

The report scrutinizes BTS data and CCTV showing some firing from elevated positions without clear imminent danger. His testimony is used to establish chain-of-command failures. The commission recommends criminal liability for him alongside higher political leadership.

What did Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah testify?

Balen Shah (then-mayor) stated he supported anti-corruption demands but urged peaceful protest. He denied inciting violence and described efforts to calm crowds in the Valley.

The report references his statement positively in some sections regarding local coordination but notes his public calls added to the momentum. It does not recommend action against him, viewing his role as supportive rather than operational.

What are the report’s main findings on state responsibility?

The commission concludes the government failed to anticipate the scale of youth discontent. Intelligence lapses, delayed cabinet-level crisis response, and over-reliance on force violated human rights standards.

It explicitly states September 8 deaths resulted from “avoidable” excessive force and poor leadership, not protester aggression alone. Broader findings link the violence to systemic corruption and governance failures that fueled Gen Z anger nationwide.

How does the report analyze social media’s role?

It acknowledges the ban was a flashpoint but finds Gen Z mobilization occurred via Discord and other platforms before the ban. Post-ban, misinformation spread rapidly.

The commission recommends regulated digital platforms with clear guidelines rather than outright bans, citing international examples where heavy-handed control backfired. It rejects conspiracy theories while noting algorithmic amplification of protest calls.

What systemic governance failures does the report highlight?

Beyond the protests, it criticizes repeated political instability (30 governments in 35 years), corruption, youth unemployment, and unequal resource distribution. It calls for electoral reforms, stronger anti-corruption mechanisms, judicial independence, and civil service accountability.

Security sector reforms—better training in crowd control and non-lethal weapons—are prioritized.

What specific recommendations for legal action and reforms are made?

– Criminal cases against Oli, Lekhak, Khapung and select officials.
– Compensation for victims’ families and injured.
– Independent probe into September 9 looting using BTS data.
– Long-term: political party regulation, youth employment schemes, digital rights framework, prison and police reforms.

It provides a detailed implementation roadmap in Part 5.

How did the commission collect evidence and ensure neutrality?

It gathered 200+ statements (including from Oli, Lekhak, security chiefs, doctors, eyewitnesses, and victims’ families), conducted field visits, analyzed 18 district reports, reviewed CCTV/BTS/autopsy data, and consulted FNCCI/CNI. Public notices invited information.

The report emphasizes adherence to the Inquiry Act and ethical standards, presenting a balanced view while holding state actors primarily accountable for September 8.

What is the current status of the report and public reaction?

Submitted March 8, 2026, it has not been publicly released despite PM Sushila Karki’s initial promise. Leaks have fueled Gen Z protests demanding full disclosure and arrests.

The government cites ongoing review and political sensitivity (pre-election timing). The commission chair has urged immediate publication. Public pressure via Maitighar sit-ins continues, with youth groups warning of further unrest if justice is delayed.

The Karki Commission report is a landmark document exposing governance failures that ignited Nepal’s Gen Z uprising. Its recommendations offer a roadmap for accountability and reform—if the government acts.