Fact Check: The Flawed Arguments of the 'Kathmandu School of Accountability Group' – Raises Legal Concerns Regarding Rule of Law in Nepal

Kathmandu School of Law’s Opponents – A Malicious Group Attempting to Undermine the Rule of Law

Kathmandu School of Law (KSL), along with its Executive Director Prof. Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula, has knocked on the doors of the court against baseless and orchestrated accusations made without evidence. In response to the legal action taken against those who have stooped to defame the college and its Executive Director, the so-called "Kathmandu School of Law Accountability Group" has resorted to absurd arguments, claiming "deep concern over the defamation case" while showing blatant disregard for the rule of law.

This pseudo "Accountability Group" recently issued a statement on the 26 March 2025, stating, "We express deep concern over the defamation case filed against some of our former students on the 24 March 2025." while continuously ignoring Nepal’s Constitution, the National Criminal Code Act, 2074, the Criminal Procedure Code Act, 2074, and the Criminal Offenses (Sentencing and Execution) Act, 2074. Similarly, they have also disregarded the National Civil Code Act, 2074, and the Civil Procedure Code Act, 2074. It appears that this anti-KSL interest group is deliberately trying to distort the legal facts.

This malicious group, opposing the excellence of Kathmandu School of Law, has publicly declared, "We wish to inform everyone that we have reached out to the National Human Rights Commission, the National Women Commission, Purbanchal University, the University Grants Commission, the Parliament, and numerous women’s rights organizations, demanding action and solidarity." This reveals their ulterior motive to persistently target KSL.

Meanwhile, the group has failed to provide any factual evidence to support the defamatory allegations against Executive Director Prof. Sangroula. Despite repeated denials from the victims, the group continues its campaign of humiliation and defamation. Shockingly, they have demanded Rs. 20 lakh (at Rs. 5 lakh per person) from Prof. Sangroula’s family, even threatening to "burn his daughter alive." These actions have created immense psychological and physical stress on the college’s academic environment and Prof. Sangroula’s family. Yet, this "hostile group" remains silent and evasive on these serious issues. Their sole intent appears to be the continuous humiliation of Kathmandu School of Law, its Executive Director Prof. Yubaraj Sangroula, and his family.

Moreover, this group with malicious intent has claimed to have approached the National Human Rights Commission and other bodies, demanding action and solidarity. However, as law students themselves, they should know that the National Human Rights Commission does not—and cannot—investigate criminal or civil allegations under Nepal’s legal framework. Any alleged criminal act or civil wrongdoing by an individual or institution does not fall under human rights violations but rather under criminal or civil offenses.

As per Article 249 (1) of Nepal’s Constitution, the National Human Rights Commission is mandated to "ensure respect, protection, and promotion of human rights and their effective implementation." Article 249(2) limits its jurisdiction to investigating human rights violations and recommending action against perpetrators. It does not extend to criminal or civil matters unless government authorities neglect their duties in investigating such cases. 

Legal experts clarify that the Commission can only intervene if state investigators or prosecutors fail in their duties, leading to human rights violations. However, the Commission has no authority to investigate the actual criminal or civil allegations themselves.

The Constitution and the National Human Rights Commission Act, 2068, clearly define the Commission’s jurisdiction under terms like "human rights violation or its abetment." Any complaint filed with the Commission regarding criminal allegations falls outside its authority, and any investigation or decision made on such matters would be legally invalid.

Yet, without studying the Commission’s mandate, this malicious group continues to spread confusion and harassment, furthering its agenda of intimidation.