<!-- unlike the top-voted answer, my answer will at no point complain about who the reviewers are. I do point out that the committee had a conflict-of-interest, but I don't use that to draw any conclusions. The bottom line is that the reviewers simply did not accept the proof (whether or not they are mathematicians, and whether or not the committee was formed by the person's own university)-->

> "So, has the committee actually come to the conclusion that the Riemann Hypothesis has been solved by Kumar Eswaran?"

[***Yes they did***](https://sreenidhi.edu.in/pdffls/A_Report_on_Riemann_Hypothesis_updated(25-06-21).pdf#page=5): "On the basis of the assessment, this expert committee has concluded that Dr. Kumar Eswaran’s proof of the Riemann Hypothesis is correct." ***However*** this was not an independent committee (it was formed by the university where Kumar Eswaran works), and would not meet the standards for the Clay Institute to mark the Riemann Hypothesis as "solved". This alone doesn't mean the proof is wrong, so now I'll summarize the actual reviews in the report (which you can access by clicking the link at the beginning of this paragraph).
<!-- It gives me great pleasure to introduce the work of one of our professors, Dr. Kumar Eswaran --> 

***Summary:***

 - Review 1 was done by 2 people who said that they didn't have sufficient expertise. 
 - Reviews 2 and 3 were done by experts, but they both dismissed the proof as "heuristic".
 - Reviews 4-6 were done by a more "local" committee including Eswaran's own brother.
<hr>


<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>


***Appendix*** (explaining the summary in more detail):
<hr>

**Review 1: [Ken Roberts](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=x_uRXvEAAAAJ&hl=en) & [SR Valluri](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IMShVO0AAAAJ&hl=en), University of Western Ontario, Canada**
 - "Our report is incomplete, in that we did not examine all aspects of the
proposed proof. There are some aspects of the Riemann zeta function with
which we are not sufficiently familiar in order to speak authoritatively."

**Review 2: [Władysław Narkiewicz](https://www.mathgenealogy.org/id.php?id=133245), University of Wrocław, Poland**

This is presented as a series of emails between reviewer and reviewee. 
  - **22 Feb 2020 (Narkiewicz)**: The review contains 4 sections. In section 1-2 the reviewer agrees with some of the author's assertions, but gives nearly 1-line proofs of them. In sections 3-4 he claims there's flaws in Eswaran's proof, for example he says "This is simply untrue".
  - **24 Feb 2020 (Eswaran)**: Gives a 2-page response.
  - **2 Mar 2020 (Narkiewicz)**: The review can be split into parts (a) and (b). He agrees with (a) and says it was proven in 1898 by H. von Mangoldt, but says "assertion b) has no correct proof."
 - **5 Mar 2020 (Eswaran):** Contains a direct response about (b).
 - **9 Mar 2020 (Narkiewicz):** He says "The main problem with your approach to RH lies in the proof of (1)" and "nowhere in your paper you mention how one can formally deduce your assertion about (1) from this well-known theorem. I wonder whether such a proof is possible, as the elements of the sequence λ(n) depend on n, and elements in a random sequence do not have that property". *He begins to discourage Eswaran, by saying "Do not worry about this situation. Several excellent mathematicians tried
without success to prove Riemann Hypothesis."* 
 - **13 Mar 2020 (Eswaran):** Response is "taking me some time."
 - **17 Mar 2020 (Eswaran):** Gives a 4-page response.
 - **30 Mar 2020 (Narkiewicz):** He says "Your proof consists of the following steps" and gives 5 steps. he says step 4 is incorrect.
 - **2 Apr 2020 (Eswaran):** Gives a 4+ page response.
 - **3 Apr 2020 (Narkiewicz):** ***Things are becoming more focused.*** He says "This thime I send you a short message with only one question" then "It seems that the problem of your proof lies in the fact that you disregard the
difference of these two notions of probability. If you really have a proof of your assertion, then I would like to be able to see it."
 - **5 Apr 2020 (Eswaran), 14 Apr (Narkiewicz), 16 Apr (Eswaran):** More back-and-forth.
 - **17 Apr 2020 (Narkiewicz):** This is the last email from Narkiewicz in the report. There's no more *specific* attacks on Ewaran's work, but he calls Eswaran's argument "heuristic" and indicates that he personally wouldn't call it a "proof".
<!--  - **18 Apr 2020 (Eswaran):** Seems to take the last message as an acceptance "Your kind words have greatly relieved me!" -->

**Reviewer 3: [Germán Sierra](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fTRtZE8AAAAJ&hl=en), Instituto de Fisica Teorica, Spain**

 - **9 Sep 2020 (Sierra):** Summarizes the proof and says "This idea has been used heuristically to conjecture the moments of
the Riemann zeta function, but again there are not rigorous proofs except for a few cases."
 - **6 Oct 2020 (Eswaran):** Gives a response with a 10-page PDF, but *unlike in the case of Narkiewicz, the report contains no response from the reviewer.*