Action Recommended Against Officials of Three Security Agencies, Leniency Shown to Army

The National Human Rights Commission has recommended disciplinary measures against senior officials of three security agencies over human rights violations during the JNG movement. Although the report pointed out the Nepal Army’s reluctance to cooperate and their insensitivity towards protecting national property, no punitive action has been suggested against the army. The report reveals that even though protesters were armed only with homemade weapons, the security forces used advanced firearms, resulting in innocent civilians being shot. Kathmandu, June 13 – The National Human Rights Commission has recommended disciplinary action against senior officials from three security agencies – Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, and National Investigation Department – following the investigation into the JNG movement protests held on September 8 and 9. However, the Commission has shown a lenient stance regarding the Nepal Army’s role.

In the 29-page summary released on Wednesday, the Commission highlighted the failures and negligence of the security personnel of the three agencies and recommended sanctions. Despite identifying shortcomings in the army, the Commission refrained from recommending disciplinary measures against it. Senior officials held accountable for human rights violations include former Nepal Police Inspector General Chandrakuber Khapung, former Additional Inspector General (currently IGP) Dan Bahadur Karki, Deputy Inspector General Om Bikram Rana, former SSP (currently DIG) Bishwo Adhikari of Kathmandu, Armed Police Force’s former IGP Raju Aryal, former AIG (now IGP) Narayandatt Paudel, SP Jeevan KC, former Chief District Officer of Kathmandu Chhabi Rizal, former intelligence chief Hutaraj Thapa, investigation director Krishna Khanal, and field commanders.

Among them, Khapung, Aryal, and Thapa are recommended to be barred from future government service with a formal record maintained, and action under Article 249, Clause 2 (g) of the Constitution. The Commission also suggested departmental action against others, including currently serving officials. Moreover, on September 8, when the three security agencies failed to control the situation, the Kathmandu CDO requested assistance from the army, but the Commission noted the army’s failure to provide such support, calling it a serious concern. “Though the CDO formally requested army assistance, no such support was actually provided,” the report states. Despite acknowledging the army’s lack of cooperation, the Commission has remained silent regarding disciplinary action against the army.

The Commission further reported that on September 9, the army ignored ongoing arson and vandalism. It also noted that the army deployed for guarding critical areas including Singha Durbar and the President’s Office failed in their protective duties. By the afternoon of September 8 and 9, all security agencies except the Nepal Army had failed, and the Council of Ministers did not decide to seek army assistance. While recognizing the army’s failure to protect national assets such as Singha Durbar, the Supreme Court, and the President’s Residence, the Commission refrained from recommending punitive measures, suggesting only that the Army Chief and security commanders receive warnings.

Earlier, the Commission had recommended disciplinary action against then Home Secretary Gokarna Mani Duwaadi, AIG Siddhivikram Shah, SSP Deep Shamsher Jabra, SP Rishiram Kandel, and several security personnel. The Armed Police Force’s DIG Suresh Kumar Shrestha was also recommended for action. However, the latest report does not mention these individuals. The Commission had also recommended action against Intelligence Deputy Director Riben Kumar Gachhadar, but has since remained silent on this matter. As per the Military Act, the Commission had suggested action against army personnel deployed to secure the President’s residence at Sheetal Niwas, the Prime Minister’s residence Baluwatar, Singha Durbar Secretariat, and Parliament. Though these individuals are not named in the current report, the government is advised to alert the commanders responsible for security at Sheetal Niwas and Singha Durbar about human rights protection.

Regarding inter-agency conflicts, the Commission observed significant deficiencies in coordination and communication among the three security bodies. For example, Nepal Police deployed the Special Task Force (STF) for Parliament security while other teams controlled protests on the streets, alongside Armed Police and intelligence personnel. However, coordination among them was markedly poor. “The lack of communication and coordination among security agencies is corroborated by personnel testimonies and official documents,” the report states. A previous commission led by Gauribahadur Karki had also criticized this lack of cohesion during crowd control operations. Informal dialogues suggest that security agencies often blame each other.

While protesters wielded homemade weapons like wooden sticks, slingshots, and petrol bombs, security forces used sophisticated firearms — including SLR and INSAS rifles. Despite significant damage to life and property during the protests, security agencies claimed their use of force was proportional. However, the Commission rejected this argument. Even though those vandalizing the Parliament building were not shot, innocent bystanders around the premises were hit by gunfire, undermining the proportionality principle.

The report also highlights that inadequate resources from the highest authorities compromised security measures, leading to substantial losses. As the protests advanced from Maitighar toward Baber Mahal, infiltration intensified, resulting in ongoing clashes between police and protesters. Protesters used sticks, arrows, and slingshots to damage the Parliament’s walls. Police responded with tear gas, which escalated the aggression. The government reportedly failed to provide field police personnel with essential protective equipment such as shields, helmets, bulletproof vests, and vehicles, contrary to recommendations. This lack of resources forced police to resort to gunfire in self-defense when unable to control protesters.

The Commission’s report openly states that due to resource shortages, careless use of firearms, and insufficient control measures by security personnel, significant human and property damage occurred during the protests.