KATHMANDU, Feb 28: The Supreme Court (SC)’s recent ruling describing social media posts by Gauri Bahadur Karki, chairperson of the probe commission formed to investigate the incidents that occurred during the Gen Z protests on September 8 and 9, as a matter of “personal ethics” has sparked a fresh debate over his moral standing and impartiality.
Questions over Karki’s ethics surfaced after the court examined statements he made on social media and in the press following the Gen Z protests but prior to his appointment as commission chair. In those remarks, Karki had argued that then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, former Prime Ministers Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, among others, should be barred from traveling abroad, detained for investigation, and that Oli should be held fully responsible for the killing of a person. The SC’s acknowledgment of these prior expressions has now placed Karki’s neutrality under scrutiny.
Although the writ petition challenging his eligibility was dismissed, the court observed that the views expressed by Karki before his appointment could reasonably raise doubts about his impartiality. However, it concluded that whether he should continue in the post despite those statements is ultimately a matter of his “personal ethics.”
Be aware of these tricky interview questions
Advocate Bipin Dhakal had filed the writ petition questioning the qualifications and suitability of the commission’s office-bearers.
The observations were made in the recently released full text of a verdict delivered on December 26, 2025, by a full bench comprising Justices Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Dr. Nahakul Subedi and Shrikant Paudel of the SC.
In its judgment, the court acknowledged that Karki’s prior remarks could not be dismissed as insignificant, as they might create reasonable suspicion in the mind of a prudent observer regarding his impartiality. Nevertheless, it clarified that the probe commission is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial body; rather, it is tasked solely with collecting facts and submitting a report to the government. Therefore, removing a person appointed by the executive solely on the basis of a perceived “apprehension of bias” would run contrary to the principles of separation of powers and judicial restraint.
The SC further noted that there was no evidence to suggest Karki lacked the legal qualifications required for the position. As such, it declined to order his removal.
The full text of the verdict also states that deciding whether to accept responsibility for investigating and reporting on matters about which he had previously expressed public opinions falls within Karki’s own moral discretion. The SC indicated that such a decision should appropriately be made by the concerned individual in accordance with his ethical judgment.
While dismissing the writ petition, the court nonetheless issued a directive to the Government of Nepal and the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. It instructed that, in the future, appointments to probe commissions tasked with investigating matters of public importance must be made in a manner that does not raise questions about appointees’ impartiality and neutrality, and that ensures public trust and institutional credibility.
Thus, even as the petition was rejected, the court signaled that greater caution is required in forming such commissions going forward. The ruling emphasizes that future appointments must safeguard neutrality, uphold public confidence, and preserve the credibility of investigative bodies entrusted with issues of national significance.
