Nepal stands at a critical juncture as it prepares for its upcoming Universal Periodic Review (UPR). This international human rights scrutiny offers a vital opportunity to assess progress and identify persistent challenges. A key area demanding urgent attention is the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Nepal, a constitutional body that, despite its crucial mandate, has struggled to effectively fulfil its role. Many recommendations previously made by the United Nations Human Rights Council’s UPR mechanism regarding the NHRC remain unimplemented, underscoring a systemic issue within the institution.
The effectiveness of the NHRC has been significantly hampered by a pervasive climate of politicisation and corruption that infiltrates many of Nepal’s constitutional bodies. This environment creates substantial obstacles for institutions tasked with upholding justice and human rights.
Navigating a Complex Political Transition
The author’s personal experience as a Commissioner of the NHRC of Nepal from 2014 to 2020 provided a firsthand view of the nation’s intricate political transformation. During this period, Nepal was engaged in drafting a new constitution, a process marked by deep societal divisions over critical issues such as federalism, social inclusion, citizenship rights, and equality. These debates were heavily influenced by a history of exclusion, particularly impacting Madhesis, Tharus, Dalits, women, and other marginalised communities. Many of these groups felt that the 2015 Constitution did not adequately address their aspirations. In this highly charged atmosphere, the NHRC’s core mandate – to serve as an independent and impartial guardian of human rights – was both indispensable and immensely challenging to execute.
Internal Struggles and Structural Imbalances
The NHRC’s capacity to function effectively was severely undermined by politicisation and a fundamentally non-inclusive institutional structure. As an individual from a socially excluded community, the author encountered persistent difficulties within a bureaucratic and leadership framework overwhelmingly dominated by upper-caste male officials. These deeply entrenched structural imbalances manifested in a variety of ways, both subtle and overt, aimed at diminishing the author’s authority. These included a lack of cooperation, the deliberate obstruction of procedural processes, and significant delays in responding to human rights-focused initiatives. Such internal resistance critically weakened the NHRC’s ability to take decisive and timely action on sensitive matters concerning social justice and equality, despite its constitutional obligations.
The Burden of Representation and Personal Attacks
During periods of intense public protest, particularly in the Tarai-Madhesh region where access to state institutions was frequently restricted, the NHRC repeatedly assigned the author to lead monitoring missions. While this role placed the author at the forefront of the Commission’s efforts during critical junctures, it also exposed them to a disproportionate level of criticism and personal attacks, including threats and even violence. Dominant caste and class groups often interpreted the author’s engagement not as the legitimate execution of an institutional mandate, but rather as personal advocacy for marginalised voices. This experience highlights a broader challenge faced by human rights institutions operating within polarised societies, where attempts to address structural inequalities are frequently misconstrued as a departure from neutrality.
Delayed Justice and Escalating Violence
Community groups consistently approached the NHRC with strong expectations of impartial hearings and prompt resolution of their grievances. However, despite a clear constitutional mandate to complete investigations and issue reports within a six-month timeframe, the NHRC frequently experienced significant delays, particularly in cases involving minority rights and social justice issues. The handling of the Tharu movement in 2015 serves as a stark illustration of this problem. Delayed monitoring and reporting in this instance contributed to an escalation of the conflict, ultimately resulting in violence and the tragic loss of lives, affecting both Tharu individuals and police personnel. A more timely and proactive intervention by an inclusive and responsive NHRC could have potentially mitigated these devastating outcomes.
A Decline in Institutional Relevance and Public Trust
The NHRC appears not to have fully integrated the lessons learned from these past experiences. The youth-led Gen Z movement in September 2025 provided clear early warning signals of widespread mobilisation, sophisticated digital advocacy, and a growing distrust in state institutions. These signals unequivocally warranted urgent attention, including monitoring missions, facilitation of dialogue, and advisories to both protestors and security forces to promote restraint. The NHRC’s failure to engage meaningfully during this critical period underscores a broader decline in its institutional relevance. This decline may be linked to diminished morale, an erosion of public trust, and is likely exacerbated by controversial appointments that have often been perceived as overlooking competence and relevant experience.
Undermining Credibility Through Flawed Appointments
The credibility of the NHRC has been further compromised by appointment processes that seem to disregard established international standards. The minimum conditions necessary for the establishment and effective functioning of independent national human rights institutions, as outlined in the Paris Principles and consistently emphasised during Nepal’s UPR cycles, appear to have been overlooked. The evident lack of transparency, pluralism, and merit-based selection in recent appointments risks transforming the NHRC from an effective accountability mechanism into a mere titular body, incapable of fulfilling its essential oversight functions.
The Path Forward: Rebuilding Trust and Effectiveness
The NHRC has demonstrably struggled to fulfil the crucial role envisioned for it under Nepal’s Constitution and its international human rights commitments. Its engagement in promoting and protecting civil and political rights has weakened, leading to direct consequences for addressing entrenched social injustices and combating impunity for grave crimes such as caste-based discrimination and untouchability.
As Nepal gears up for its forthcoming UPR, a renewed and intensified focus on institutional independence, genuine inclusivity, and proactive engagement is not just desirable but absolutely essential. Without these fundamental reforms, the NHRC and other constitutional bodies will continue to struggle to regain credibility and effectively serve as meaningful protectors of human rights for all citizens of Nepal.
Urgent Legislative and Institutional Reforms Needed
Following the upcoming elections, it will be imperative for the new Parliament to prioritise amending the NHRC Act. This legislative action must aim to strengthen the Commission, ensuring its operations are fully aligned with the Paris Principles and meet the stringent requirements of international law concerning independence and impartiality.
The NHRC, alongside other ostensibly independent bodies, currently mirrors the broader societal challenges prevalent in Nepal. These include the persistent exclusion of minorities, deeply ingrained misogyny, and regional discrimination. These very issues have been brought to the forefront by the social unrest witnessed in recent months. While the NHRC is ideally positioned to lead national efforts in resolving these critical issues, it must first undertake the vital task of putting its own house in order. This is a matter of profound urgency for the future of human rights in Nepal.
