The violent March 28 pro-monarchy protest in Tinkune has sparked debates not just on the shortcomings of the republican dispensation and the persistence of royalist sentiment in the country but also the nature of state response to contain riots, as well as its ability to uphold public trust and democratic principles.

Several questions remain unanswered about the demonstration that escalated into riots, with the protesters clashing with police forces, leaving two dead and over 120 injured. Private and public properties, as well as media houses and a supermarket, were vandalised.

The scale of the force used by the security apparatus to contain the riots was made public only a week later. While the government has said that security officers acted to maintain law and order, questions are being raised about the use of ‘disproportionate’ force.

The situation appeared to have spiraled out of control rapidly, leading to confusion, as those caught up in the incident also included passers-by and ordinary people.

Amid this, there have been growing calls for a judicial investigation to assess the riots and whether the police’s use of force was appropriate. Critics say an independent inquiry is essential to maintain public trust.

“A judicial inquiry and independent fact-finding won’t just address accountability for the March 28 violence to the satisfaction of all—they’ll strengthen constitutional democracy and help contain the threats it faces,” Bipin Adhikari, a law professor and expert on the constitution, writes on his X account.

Under criminal law, any offence can be investigated based on the principles of criminal justice. The protest on March 28 was carried out with the government’s permission, Adhikari says, arguing that the purpose of the royalist protest was neither to damage public or private property nor to kill people. Likewise, the government permitted the protest precisely to uphold the right to freedom of expression, he says.

“As the incident is controversial, it would be unjust to the non-government side if it is seen solely from the government’s perspective,” Adhikari told the Post. “The state should not make judicial investigation a matter of prestige.”

In Adhikari’s observation, the government perceived the protesters merely as those intent on forcibly overthrowing the constitution. “The government approached the incident from a singular theoretical standpoint,” Adhikari argues. “Whereas, in reality, multiple legal and political principles could be relevant in this context.”

Adhikari adds, “The use of force is subject to both national and international norms. The standards set today may also be applied to others in the future. The political parties today in the government could be on the street; what if a similar approach is adopted to their protest?”

However, the government has so far opposed the demands for a judicial commission, insisting that existing state mechanisms are sufficient to do the job.

This stance has prompted concern from civil society groups and human rights observers, who stress the importance of transparency and impartiality in addressing such a serious incident.

Various human rights organisations have called for an independent judicial investigation, in light of excessive use of force during the protest.

Releasing a joint statement on April 6, Accountability Watch Committee, Amnesty International Nepal, Advocacy Forum Nepal, and Justice and Rights Institute Nepal demanded an independent judicial investigation into the incident.

Meanwhile, lawmakers discussed the issue of formation of an investigation committee to probe the incident during the meeting of the parliamentary Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee on Friday.

The committee, however, could not issue any directive to the government to this effect.

Committee chair Bimala Subedi said that during the pro-monarchy protests, there had been incidents of vandalism, arson, and even killings, and hence the meeting felt the need for a thorough investigation to uncover the facts.

The issue was discussed in the presence of Home Minister Ramesh Lekhek, who stated that the government would investigate the matter through regular legal process and bring the culprits to justice. But he turned down demands for a judicial probe committee.

“Lawmakers Sunil Sharma and Suhang Nembang from the ruling parties [Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, respectively] were in favour of a judicial investigation,” said a committee member. “But the home minister ruled out the possibility.”

Earlier, on April 4, the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives also instructed the government to conduct a comprehensive probe into the March 28 pro-monarchy protests, urging legal action against those directly and indirectly involved in violent activities.

Minister for Information and Communication Technology Prithvi Subba Gurung, who is also the government spokesperson, says the home ministry is looking into the issue and there won’t be any separate committee to investigate the incident, let alone a judicial investigation.

“The incident falls under the jurisdiction of the home ministry, and the ministry is studying it,” Minister Gurung told the Post.

On April 5, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, upon his arrival at Tribhuvan International Airport after attending the Bimstec Summit in Thailand, had hinted that an investigation committee on the incident of March 28 might be formed.

“There may or may not be a judicial investigation, but any investigation will be impartial,” Prime Minister Oli had told journalists at the airport. “Not everything requires a judicial inquiry. We will consider whether to conduct a judicial or other investigation.”

Among the opposition parties demanding a judicial inquiry into the incident are the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and the right-wing Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). The RPP also expressed solidarity with the pro-monarchy protest on March 28 organised by the Joint People’s Movement Committee.

Two senior RPP leaders, Rabindra Mishra and Dhawal Shamsher Rana, have been arrested on charges of inciting the crowd to resort to vandalism and arson. Police on Friday also remanded Durga Prasai, the ‘field commander’ of the protest, into custody. Police have been investigating them on charges of sedition and organised crime.

RPP leaders have maintained that there should also be an investigation into the arrest of their leaders, the use of tear gas on the protest stage, possible infiltration, and the deaths of a protester and a video journalist.

“Investigations carried out by judicial commissions can be impartial and independent because people from legal backgrounds, like a former Supreme Court judge, will lead the investigation,” says Dhruba Bahadur Pradhan, a RPP vice-chair.

When asked why he and his party doubted the state mechanism, Pradhan, also a former Inspector General (IG) of Nepal Police, explained that they were not trying to cast doubt on investigations carried out by government mechanisms but the March 28 incident had left open many questions.

“In this case, there are growing suspicions that the police may have used undue force. There is a need for an impartial and independent panel to dispel doubts that the investigation might be biased or might arrive at a conclusion favourable to the authorities,” Pradhan said.

“As the state is accused of using excessive force in the incident, wherein even those not involved in the demonstration have been shot, it is natural to doubt the investigation carried out by the state mechanism,” he said.