Inside The British College Controversy: Court Filing Details Coordinated Extortion Scheme
29th April 2026, Kathmandu
A defamation case has been filed at the Kathmandu District Court against two individuals, Priyanka Nepal, 22, and Ashuv KC, 20, in connection with what The British College Kathmandu alleges is a deliberate and organised campaign to damage the institution’s reputation.
Inside The British College Controversy
The case has been filed under Nepal’s Muluki Criminal Code 2074 under the offence of Gaali Beijjati. What makes the filing significant is not only the legal action itself but the sequence of events that preceded it, a sequence that complicates the narrative that has dominated coverage of the TBC Kathmandu controversy since December 2025.
A relationship at the centre of the controversy
Priyanka Nepal and Ashuv KC, understood to be in a relationship, became the most publicly visible faces of a group that accused TBC of systematic wrongdoing, maintaining a sustained social media presence that portrayed them as student advocates exposing institutional malpractice.
A closer look at the timeline and conduct alleged by the college, however, raises serious questions about whether the campaign was rooted in genuine grievance or something else.
How it started: a personal dispute, not a systemic failure
Ashuv KC had been among a cohort of students travelled to Dubai as part of a hospitality management programme. According to TBC’s account, his return to Kathmandu was not due to any institutional failure but to a personal dispute with faculty in Dubai. What followed his return is where TBC’s complaint becomes most pointed.
KC, together with Priyanka Nepal, is alleged to have then embarked on a recruitment effort targeting other students, particularly those still in Dubai, to abandon their studies and join a protest movement in Nepal. Financial inducements of approximately two crore rupees per individual are alleged to have been offered.
The college’s full factual account of the hospitality programme addresses the Dubai component and the circumstances of affected students in detail.
The figure that most directly challenges the campaign’s central claim is this: more than 40 students from Nepal remained in Dubai throughout, continuing their studies and internships without formal complaint and describing their experience as satisfactory. The overwhelming majority of the group stayed. That fact has received comparatively little attention in the coverage of the British College Nepal controversy, but is regarded by the institution as the most significant indicator that the programme itself was not fundamentally deficient.
Allegations of extortion behind the public campaign
According to sources familiar with the matter, while Priyanka Nepal and Ashuv KC were publicly presenting themselves as victims and filing formal complaints, they were simultaneously demanding a substantial financial settlement from TBC in exchange for withdrawing their campaign.
The college declined. It was only after TBC refused to engage with what it characterised as extortion that the campaign escalated in character, shifting from formal complaints toward broader efforts to damage the institution through social media, organised media outreach, and physical disruption.
Advertisement
December 2025: vandalism, six arrests, and a network beyond TBC students
The most visible escalation came in December 2025 when a group of individuals attempted to vandalise TBC’s Trade Tower premises in Thapathali. Police intervened and arrested six people in connection with the incident.
All six were reported to be affiliated with a student union that has no connection to TBC, raising an immediate question about who had organised and mobilised them.
Weeks later, in January 2026, Bibek Dhakal, a former TBC student, understood to be part of the same network as the two defendants, was arrested by police on extortion-related allegations against the college.
The proximity of his arrest to the December vandalism reinforced TBC’s position that it had been the target of a sequential, coordinated campaign rather than a spontaneous act of student protest.
TBC has also raised the possibility of involvement from external parties, potentially including competing institutions, and has called on authorities to investigate whether financial or logistical support was provided from outside the student group.
The broader picture
The case before the Kathmandu District Court is more complicated than either side’s preferred version of events. The British College controversy has legitimate dimensions that deserve transparent answers to questions about what students were told when they enrolled in the hospitality programme, what the Dubai component actually involved, and what institutional response was provided to students who encountered difficulties.
Those questions do not disappear because the defendants may have had financial motives. The college’s official position on all aspects of the controversy is publicly available.
What the defamation filing does establish, if the allegations are borne out, is that the campaign against The British College Kathmandu was not what it was presented as being; behind the public posture of student advocacy lay an organised effort to extract money from the institution, with reputational damage deployed as the instrument of pressure when payment was refused.
Neither Priyanka Nepal nor Ashuv KC has issued a public response to the specific allegations in the filing.
The case is expected to be closely watched as a test of how Nepal’s legal system responds to coordinated reputational campaigns and as an indicator of where the line sits between legitimate student advocacy and organised leverage against educational institutions.
For more: Inside The British College Controversy
