? 
"Such decisions will establish a trend to entrench impunity and send the wrong message at the wrong time," said Jyoti Sanghera, head of the U.N. Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner in Nepal (OHCHR-N), in a statement on Friday. "The government should respect Nepal’s judiciary and the rule of law."
source: TrustLaw
http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/un-warns-nepal-clemency-move-will-entrench-impunity/
The implications of this decision for the rule of law in Nepal are equally of serious concern. The Interim Constitution specifically mandated that the Government of Nepal is bound by the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it seems that a cabinet decision is sufficient to overturn a decision rendered by the highest judicial authority, questioning the reality of the independence of judiciary and the balance of power in Nepal.
Needless to say, that decision is also an additional blow to the fundamental democratic principle of equality of all before the law as belonging to a certain political party is sufficient to be cleared from accusations of having committed human rights violations.
source: Asian Human Rights Commission
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-172-2011
If we go on pardoning those involved in serious crimes in the name of their affiliation in any particular political party, it will raise question on the essence of the would-be formed Truth and Reconciliation Commission," the release said, adding that this act of government will open way to grant amnesty to those involved in gross violation of human rights.
Stating that the Article 2 (3) of the ICCPR 1966 to which Nepal is a state party, there is the right to effective action if civil and political rights of an individual are violated, the release said that it is the right of the State to ensure effective remedy if the state and non-state party involves in the violation and abuse of human rights. Such remedy should identify the violator and take action against him/her and deliver justice to the victim.
"Though Article 151 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal states that the Council of Ministers may grant pardons to persons convicted, and suspend, commute or reduce any sentence imposed by any court, special court, military court or by any other judicial or quasi-judicial, or administrative authority or institution, this very provision cannot be interpreted as unlimited and discretionary, the release said, adding," If the provision is interpreted as unlimited discretionary power, there is the risk that perpetrators involved serious crimes under national and international law like extra judicial killing, involuntary disappearance, torture and rape could be pardoned and the perpetrators can escape without punishment."
source:INSEConline.org (the first human rights news portal in Nepal)
http://www.inseconline.org/index.php?type=news&id=9241&lang=en
So here, the provision of amnesty is the right to effective action if civil and political rights of an individual are violated, the release said that it is the right of the State to ensure effective remedy if the state and non-state party involves in the violation and abuse of human rights which is not the case here. It is actually Shrestha family whose human rights have been violoated as stated by various human rights watchdogs...
Do did u understand the legality of the issue now?