Law Day: Time to look beyond paper promises

By: Jivesh Jha & Bishnu Chandra Nepali

Published: May 8, 2026, (The Annapurna Express, page 4)

As we observe Law Day on May 9, it is a moment not just for celebration, but also for honest reflection. The day marks the enforcement of the Supreme Court Act and symbolizes our commitment to the rule of law. Yet, an uncomfortable question remains: have we truly succeeded in enforcing our legal mandates in both letter and spirit?

Many argue that Nepal’s commitment to the rule of law still falls short of what our Constitution promises. Laws look impressive when written, but they lose their meaning if they remain only in books. When legal provisions are not followed in practice, they become little more than decorative words.

Take, for instance, the clear constitutional provision under Article 132, which bars former Justices or Chief Justices of the Supreme Court from holding government positions. Despite this, we have witnessed instances that appear to contradict this mandate. During the 2013 Constituent Assembly elections, former Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi simultaneously held the position of Chief Justice and head of the executive (while the legislature was in a state of animated suspension).

Such events raise serious concerns about separation of power and constitutional compliance.

Another example lies in the formation of oversized cabinets in the past, which seem to go beyond the limits envisioned under Article 76. When constitutional provisions are bent or ignored for political convenience, it weakens public trust in governance.

Fate of fundamental rights

The gap between enactment and enforcement is more visible in everyday life. Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a clean environment. Yet, pollution continues to affect cities and towns across the country.

Likewise, the Constitution guarantees the right to employment, but hundreds of youths leave Nepal every day in search of jobs abroad. If rights exist only on paper, can we truly say they exist at all?

The same can be said about the right to housing. Many citizens still struggle to find adequate shelter despite this being a fundamental right. As consumers, people are frequently overcharged, with prices of goods varying widely from one shop to another without transparency. Restaurants and hotels often charge arbitrarily, raising questions about the enforcement of consumer protection laws.

Political appointments

The Constitution also envisions fair and merit-based appointments in public offices. However, reality often tells a different story. Many individuals appointed (in previous governments) to key positions have strong political affiliations rather than proven competence.

It is not uncommon to find that loyalty to political parties outweighs merit and qualifications. This creates a system where capable individuals are overlooked, while less qualified individuals are elevated.

Question of rule of law

This situation reflects what legal scholar AV Dicey warned about when he discussed the rule of law. He emphasized that laws must not only exist but must also be applied equally and fairly. If political influence dominates legal processes, the very foundation of the rule of law is shaken.

It raises a deeper question: are we moving toward a “rule of law” or merely a “rule by law”? The difference is crucial. The rule of law ensures fairness, accountability and equality before the law. Rule by law uses laws as tools to serve those in power.

The consequences of this gap are visible. Many young people feel disappointed and see no future within the country. They look abroad for opportunities, believing that merit is better recognized elsewhere.

Even within the bureaucracy and other sectors, frustration grows when capable individuals remain stuck while others rise through political connections.

So, has the system failed us, or have we failed the system? The answer likely lies somewhere in between. Political leaders often act in their own interests, but citizens, institutions, and watchdog bodies also have a role in demanding accountability.

Law Day should not be reduced to a symbolic event marked by speeches and ceremonies. It should serve as a reminder that laws must be implemented, not just written. Observing Law Day without ensuring implementation risks turning it into an empty ritual.

Way forward

If Nepal is serious about strengthening democracy, it must commit to implementing the Constitution fully and faithfully. This means respecting constitutional limits, ensuring merit-based appointments, protecting fundamental rights and holding violators accountable—regardless of their position.

Otherwise, the gap between promise and practice will only widen. And, if that happens, the celebration of Law Day will lose its meaning, becoming just another date on the calendar rather than a true reflection of justice in action.

In a country where many people still face problems like distance, poverty and language barriers in reaching the courts, Law Day reminds the government that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Law Day acts as a guiding light for the nation. The 2015 Constitution brought major changes in how power is shared, and the judiciary now plays a key role in settling important political disputes.

It also shows that no matter how serious political instability may be, the Constitution remains supreme. The day honors the strength of legal institutions that have continued through many changes—from monarchy to republic, and from conflict to peace.

https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/64175/ 

A political agenda worth debating

By: Jivesh Jha & Gyan Bahadur Khatri

Published: Feb. 26, 2026, The Annapurna Express

As Nepal gears up for elections, campaign agendas may extend beyond routine political promises. One meaningful focus could be legal reform—especially revisiting criminal procedural laws to ensure timely execution of judgments. By prioritizing informed dialogue and legislative amendment, political parties have an opportunity to strengthen Nepal’s justice delivery system and restore public confidence in the rule of law.

“No Judgement of any Court, no order of any Judges, is of any use unless it can be enforced,” rightly said Lord Denning.

 The administration of criminal justice does not conclude with the pronouncement of judgment. The effectiveness, credibility, and authority of judicial decisions depend largely upon their proper execution.

The National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (hereinafter code) under Chapter-15 (Sections 151 to 168) constitute a comprehensive statutory framework governing the recording, execution, postponement, remission, and enforcement of sentences, fines, compensation, pardoning and related orders. After all, executio est finis et fructus legis—an execution is the end and the fruit of law.

Reference may be made to one of the most famous judgments of England. Lord Hewart, CJ, stated it in R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924), where he said: “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Constitutionally speaking, Article 126(2) of the Constitution of Nepal provides that “everyone shall comply with the orders or decisions given by the court in the course of judicial proceedings.” Likewise, Section 18(1) of the Justice Administration Act, 2073 states that “except as otherwise provided in this Act or the prevailing law, a decision made by any court, body, or authority in the course of judicial proceedings shall be final, and all concerned parties shall abide by such decision.”

Time for legal reform

It is reasonable to argue that the Code is an enlarged version of the State Cases Act, 2049. It provides limited procedural arrangements for private prosecution cases. The code should have incorporated a separate chapter dealing specifically with procedural aspects of private prosecution, such as the lapse of dates, securing dates, and other procedural safeguards.

Section 165(11), which stipulates that personal claims cannot be recovered, the state bears the cost of the prisoner’s ration during imprisonment, effectively shifts the financial burden to the state due to the non-realization of personal claimed amounts. As a result, the state is subjected to an unnecessary burden even in cases arising out of purely private transactions between individuals. In such cases, private individuals are required to approach the court through an application to realize their claims in accordance with judgments delivered in their favor.

As in private prosecution cases, state criminal cases should also recognize the Government of Nepal as the petitioner at the stage of execution. The responsibility of the government should not end with the filing of the case. Rather, it should demonstrate proactive and sustained efforts at the execution stage, similar to its role during investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.

The execution of judgments cannot take their true and effective shape unless state mechanisms commit themselves to withholding state services—such as the issuance or clearance of electricity bills, water bills, or the registration or renewal of transport services—from judgment debtors.

The state should establish a common portal containing information on defendants who have failed to furnish fines, compensation, claimed amounts, or to serve jail sentences as mandated by court judgments. The government should restrict public services to those who fail to comply with court orders and judgments. An amendment could be introduced in this regard under Section 160 of the code and other relevant laws.

Executive’s role is essential

Non-execution of court verdicts fosters a culture of impunity. While the state possesses the police, administrative machinery, prisons, and other executive mechanisms with adequate means to enforce court verdicts, the courts themselves lack enforcement agencies.

Judgments cannot be enforced in letter and spirit unless state mechanisms stand on an equal footing when it comes to execution. The court verdicts cannot be effectively implemented until and unless the executive organs of the state are equally involved in the execution process.

In countries like India, the United States, England, and China, the judicial department delivers judgments, but the executive branch ensures their execution, reflecting the principle of separation of powers.

Other laws

Meanwhile, Section 166 of the Code provides a priority order for recovery, placing fines first, government claims second, followed by compensation, claimed amounts, and lastly other amounts in question.

This provision has significant consequences in cases involving banking offenses, cheque dishonor cases, and private prosecution cases. As a result, plaintiffs in private prosecution cases often suffer in the realization of their claims, as the law mandates the recovery of fines before addressing private claims.

Section 155 allows first-time offenders sentenced to one year or less to substitute imprisonment with a monetary payment—Rs 300 per day. Courts must record reasons and obtain a good conduct deed before granting relief. The amendment changed the language from “may” to “shall,” making the release by payment mandatory.

Way forward

As per Judgment Execution Directorate’s data (as of 17 Nov 2024), there are 106,265 persons whose imprisonment remains to be executed (of which 2,538 are foreign nationals). The remaining imprisonment amounts to 118,613 years, 3 months, and 5 days. The outstanding fines total Rs 2,998,629,509, of which the government’s share is Rs. 212,264,153. Compensation yet to be paid to victims of crime amounts to Rs 931,191,131. Additionally, there are 37,718 pending applications related to judgment execution.

This data paint a depressing reality. But who is to blame? Courts? Certainly not. The courts’ job is to pronounce verdicts and oversee their execution, but the actual enforcement rests with the executive branch.

The court’s job is to judicially examine the case. It is improper for the court to side with the winning party or act against the losing party in the name of executing a judgment.

“A punishment imposed in accordance with a judgment does not attain its purpose unless it is actually executed. A judgment that cannot be enforced also loses its real significance,” held the Supreme Court in the case of Nimesh Lakhe v Lalitpur District Court, et al.

A democratic state should encourage debate and ensure court verdicts are enforced. The executive’s role is crucial—not just in filing cases, but also in implementing judgments. The judiciary’s sole job is to deliver justice; delays in enforcement are the executive’s responsibility.

To uphold the rule of law and end impunity, timely execution of judgments is essential, following practices in other countries. Let’s protect the judiciary, the temple of justice, and make this a priority—even as an election agenda—for good governance and democracy.

The authors work at the Supreme Court and have a keen interest in academic discussions on law

Jivesh Jha & Gyan Bahadur Khatri

Modernizing criminal justice with technological use

By: Jivesh Jha & Rajendra Paudel

Published: April 17, 2026, The Annapurna Express  

In today’s world, technology has become an essential part of criminal investigations. What once depended largely on eyewitnesses, confessions, and manual police work has now evolved into a system supported by data, machines, and scientific tools. Modern digital technologies are helping law enforcement agencies solve complex cases more quickly, more efficiently, and often more fairly.

Artificial intelligence (AI), data analysis, digital forensics, and biometric identification have significantly transformed traditional methods of investigation. These tools allow investigators to process large volumes of information in a short time, identify patterns, and draw connections that would otherwise remain hidden. As a result, investigations are not only faster but also more accurate and reliable.

Digital evidence has now become a routine part of criminal cases. Electronic records, mobile phone data, emails, and even blockchain-based systems for tracking evidence are increasingly used in courts. Unlike traditional forms of evidence, digital records often leave a trace that is difficult to erase, making them particularly valuable in proving or disproving claims.

Technologies such as CCTV cameras, drones, and body-worn cameras have also changed the way crimes are detected and investigated. Surveillance systems help monitor public spaces and record events as they unfold.

Facial recognition and location-tracking technologies have further strengthened investigations. In many cases, they have helped law enforcement agencies solve crimes that would have otherwise remained unsolved.

DNA analysis

Another major development has been in the field of genetic science. DNA analysis has advanced far beyond its early forms. DNA evidence can link a suspect to a crime scene or help identify unknown individuals, making it one of the most powerful tools in modern investigations.

However, it is important to remember that even scientific evidence has its limits. Courts have emphasized that DNA reports, while important, are not absolute proof.

In Ram Shahi and Others v Prem Kumari Shahi and Others (NKP 2079, Decision No. 10854), the Supreme Court (SC) held that DNA evidence must be examined in the context of social realities and surrounding circumstances. This highlights a jurisprudential principle: technology should assist justice, not replace judicial reasoning.

Cross-border crimes

Technology is also playing a crucial role in addressing crimes in border areas. Nepal faces challenges such as cross-border trafficking, illegal trade, narcotics smuggling, and the circulation of counterfeit currency.

Crimes like human trafficking, especially involving women and girls, remain a serious concern.

In Chandra Kant Gyanwali v Government of Nepal (NKP 2080, Decision No. 11037), the SC stressed the need for stronger border management, including the use of CCTV and other surveillance technologies at checkpoints and transit points. Effective use of technology can significantly improve monitoring and control in these sensitive areas.

From a constitutional perspective, Nepal has recognized the importance of technology in governance and development. The Constitution encourages the expansion of information technology to meet national needs.

At the same time, it protects fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, communication, and consumer rights in digital spaces. These provisions show that while technology is encouraged, it must operate within the framework of rights and freedoms.

AG’s recommendation

In terms of legal provisions, the Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 plays a key role in dealing with cyber offences. It provides that such offences are prosecuted in the name of the Government of Nepal and allows investigators to seek assistance from technical experts.

The growing complexity of cybercrime, however, has exposed the limitations of existing laws. As cyber offences become more sophisticated, there is an increasing demand for updated and comprehensive cyber legislation, recommending the study of Impact Assessment of Cyber Crime–Related Laws in Nepal (Investigative Study Report, 2081), conducted by Office of Attorney General (AG).

Institutionally, Nepal has taken steps to strengthen cybercrime investigations. The report of the Attorney General further reveals that the Central Cyber Bureau at Police Headquarters handles cyber-related offences across the country, supported by cyber cells in all seven provinces.

The Central Investigation Bureau and the Metropolitan Police Crime Division play important roles in different regions. However, studies have suggested that more specialized training is needed for investigators dealing with high-tech crimes, organized crime, and terrorism, recommends the 2081 AG report.

 

Criminal adjudication

The Criminal Procedure Code also reflects the growing role of technology in the justice system. It allows the filing of FIR through electronic means and provides for digital archiving of such reports.

Statements of witnesses and accused persons can be recorded through video conferencing, especially in cases involving illness, old age, or security risks. Courts can also record evidence and conduct proceedings digitally, making the justice system more accessible and efficient.

The Evidence Act, 2031 has provisions that allow the use of digital evidence. Facts expressed through emails, messages, or other digital forms can be considered in court. The Act also recognizes expert opinions in areas such as science and technology, provided that the expert appears before the court as a witness. Documentary evidence is not limited to paper documents, which means that digital records are admissible.

The law requires that proper procedures be followed before accessing personal data. For example, investigators must obtain permission from the court and submit relevant documents, such as FIRs, when seeking access to call detail records (CDRs) or other digital information.

 

In Advocate Baburam Aryal v Government of Nepal (NKP 2074, Decision No. 9740), the SC emphasized that while CDRs can be useful in investigations, they must be obtained strictly in accordance with the law.

This balance between technology and rights is crucial. Surveillance systems, if not properly regulated, can lead to violations of privacy and civil liberties. Strong legal safeguards and judicial oversight are essential.

Way forward

Technology has undoubtedly transformed criminal investigations in Nepal. It has made the process faster, more efficient, and more scientific. The need of the hour is not just more technology, but better regulation, updated laws, and trained personnel who can use these tools responsibly.

The Fifth Strategic Plan of the SC also endeavors to promote the use of technology and AI across the entire judicial system. The need of the hour is to ensure effective compliance with these strategic plans, and the government must provide adequate budgetary support and necessary manpower. A high-tech, technology-friendly justice system cannot be realized unless the government actively supports and motivates court officials and ensures the proper implementation of these strategic plans.

Technology should serve justice, not dominate it. The ultimate goal must remain the same: to ensure fairness, protect rights, and uphold the rule of law in an increasingly digital world.

Call detail records: Balancing privacy and probe in criminal law

 Jivesh Jha & Bishnu Chandra Nepali

The Annapurna Express, Nov. 18, 2025) 

In today’s world, mobile phones have become more than just a means of talking to one another—they have become an inseparable part of our daily lives. According to the National Census Report of 2022, about 73.2 percent of Nepalis now own a mobile phone, while only 4.5 percent still use a landline. This shift tells an interesting story: nearly three out of every five people in the country have mobile access. It’s a remarkable step toward the vision of a Digital Nepal.

This widespread use of mobile phones has changed how people stay connected. Families, friends and communities can now share information and emotions instantly, bridging physical distances and strengthening social ties. Mobile phones have become tools of connection.

However, the same technology that keeps us connected also plays a key role in crime investigation. With mobile phones nearly in every hand, police and other law enforcement agencies have found new ways to track down suspects and gather evidence of crime.

The Call Detail Records (CDRs) provide a wealth of information—numbers dialed, call duration and timestamps—that help investigators to find the accused or the victim’s movement, communication patterns and even possible intentions. In many cases, these records become crucial in identifying the sequence of events, the intent, planning and execution of a crime/offense.

Constitutional scenario 

The Constitution of Nepal prohibits the enactment of any law or order that undermines fundamental freedoms and constitutional values. Article 19(3) stipulates that the means of communication cannot be obstructed except by law. Article 28 guarantees the right to privacy concerning one’s body, residence, property, documents and communications. The Individuals’ Right to Privacy Act, 2018, under Section 11 and 25, empowers investigating agencies to collect personal information during the investigation of an offense with authorization from a court or some other appropriate authority. This Act seeks to strengthen the right to privacy; however, its provisions clarify that privacy is not absolute and may be restricted during criminal investigations by the police. 

Article 20 further provides that no defendant shall be compelled to testify against themselves and that they have the right to be informed of the actions taken against them.

Criminal laws 

Though Nepal lacks an independent law specifically governing CDRs, multiple laws—including the Right to Privacy Act, 2075; Narcotic Drugs Act; Telecommunication Act, 2053; and the Electronic Transaction Act, 2063—have provided the legal basis for collecting individuals’ data during criminal investigations. 

The Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) directs telecommunication service providers to archive call records for at least one year. The NTA also instructs service providers to furnish CDRs to investigating authorities upon a court order.

Section 10A of the Narcotic Drug (Control) Act, 2033 authorizes investigating agencies to collect phone records and other communication details of any person under investigation. A similar legal provision is found in Section 18 of the Organized Crime (Prevention) Act, 2070, which empowers investigators to obtain communication data for crime control purposes.

The Telecommunications Act, 2053, under Section 19, empowers the government to tap telephones or obtain call details of any individual when deemed necessary under the law.

Further, the Guidelines Relating to Access to Justice (Procedure), 2074, adopted by the Supreme Court of Nepal, entrusts district courts with the authority to regulate the procedure for obtaining call details. Section 4 of the guidelines requires the investigating officer to submit copies of the First Information Report (FIR) or Police Report, along with other relevant documents, when seeking court permission to access a person’s call details. Section 7 provides that the police or any other investigating authority may request the court for access to information such as location, SMS, CDRs, user details, SIM user and location, call-wise location, IP address and internet activity logs, among other details. Section 11 stipulates that the district judge’s decision in this regard shall be final.

In Advocate Baburam Aryal v Government of Nepal (NKP 2074, Part 59, Decision No. 9740), the Supreme Court held that obtaining call or SMS details without legal authorization is unlawful. The court emphasized that while criminal investigations may rely on CDRs, such actions must strictly adhere to the procedures prescribed by law and order.

Section 297 of the National Criminal Code, 2017 prohibits the interception or recording of another person’s telephone conversation without proper authorization or consent. Violation of this provision is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to NPR 20,000 or both. Section 299 prohibits deceitful telephone calls or transmitting messages. It provides that a person who commits such an offense shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees or both. 

Global precedent 

In India, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [Indian Evidence Act, 2023] provides that magistrates have the authority to permit or deny the collection of CDR information.

In China, there is no requirement for a judicial order to obtain CDR information. The legal framework does not recognize the concept of a warrant, and security personnel have the authority to detain individuals or demand CDRs directly.

In Japan, CDRs are obtained by investigating agencies only upon the order of judicial officials, ensuring judicial oversight in the process.

Way forward 

The CDRs are a valuable tool for understanding networks, as they reveal who called whom, how frequently and for how long. They help uncover criminal networks and associates, playing a crucial role in tracking the whereabouts of suspects, defendants and their accomplices.

Despite their importance, an independent legislation dealing with CDRs is still due in Nepal. There is scope for amending the National Criminal Procedure Code to formally incorporate a mechanism for the lawful collection and use of CDRs in investigations.

https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/60052/ 

Overuse of PILs: A sign of poor governance

 Jivesh Jha and Khagendra Tiwari 

By: Jivesh Jha & Khagendra Tiwari

Published: Aug. 21, 2025, The Annapurna Express , page 4 

As a democracy, Nepal has state apparatuses to address the concerns of its people. Hospitals exist to treat ills and courts are there to provide remedy with judicial pills. However, neither courts nor hospitals can cure all ills with perfect judicial or medical pills. 

Of late, people seem to place great trust either in hospitals for health and long life, or in courts for accessing justice. The rising number of public interest litigations (PILs) and writs show that public faith in the judiciary has grown over the years. This is a positive sign as the judiciary is counted as the resort for availing justice. 

However, this also tells us something interesting that people often turn to courts with litigation because of failure of other branches of the state—the legislature and the executive—to meet the expectations of the people or for their gross failure in upholding the constitutional values. 

PIL 

The PIL refers to a legal proceeding initiated in a court poor to protect or enforce the rights or interests of the public or a particular segment of society. Unlike typical lawsuits, a PIL is filed not for personal gain but to seek justice on behalf of the public. 

The petitioner is not dominus litis in PIL cases. The Supreme Court of Nepal has passed a plethora of judgments while considering PIL suits. It’s generally the relaxation of locus standi. 

Articles 133 and 144 of the Constitution of Nepal empower the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts with extraordinary jurisdiction to issue necessary orders and writs. The decisions passed under PILs have played a dynamic role in advancing significant social and legal reforms over the years.

The case of Advocate Radhey Shyam Adhikari v the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers and Others (NKP 2048 BS, Vol 12, Decision Number 4430) is considered as the first PIL case in Nepal where the SC held that petitioners need to have meaningful relations and substantial interest in the subject matter to file a PIL.

In the landmark case of Surendra Raj Pandey v Speaker of Gandaki Province and Others (080-WO-1175), the SC invalidated the Speaker’s decision to uphold the confidence vote secured by Chief Minister Khag Raj Adhikari, who had claimed support from 30 MLAs in a 60-member House.

The petitioner contended that a majority requires the backing of more than half the total strength of the House—ie, at least 31 members in a 60-member assembly. The respondents argued that the Chief Minister had obtained a majority of the members present and voting, specifically 30 out of 59 MLAs. The court, however, held that a vote of confidence must command the support of the majority of the total membership of the House, not just those present and voting. As a result, the confidence motion was deemed invalid and was set aside through certiorari. 

In Hikmat Kumar Karki v Chief of the Province, Koshi Province, Biratnagar and Others (NKP 2081, Issue 10, Decision Number 11356), the SC held that a person holding the position of the Speaker cannot claim an additional or dual role as a Provincial Assembly member. The Speaker must remain limited to the role of Speaker. 

In Sher Bahadur Deuba and Others v the Office of the President and Others (077-WC-0071), the SC reinstated the House the President had dissolved on the recommendation of then KP Sharma Oli-led government.  

These are just a few representative cases where the apex court had to step in to uphold the constitutional values. These types of incidents have not occurred only in Nepal. India, too, has a long list of Supreme Court decisions correcting the injustices from the governments at the helm.

India’s case

The Supreme Court of India, by overruling its own decision in the State of Rajasthan v the Union of India (1977), held in the case of SR Bommai v Union of India (1994) that the presidential proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review and that it is not an absolute but a conditional power and that no assembly can be dissolved before both the Houses of the Parliament ratify the proclamation. The imposition of Presidential rule and dissolution of the State Assembly cannot be done together, the SC further held.

The apex court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v the State of Bihar (2006) held that the Governor has no power to decide the majority of the state legislative assembly. He is supposed to play a role in forming a government of a party or parties enjoying majority or confidence in the House and the deciding place for the matter is only the floor of the House, not the Raj Bhawan (Governor’s House).

Sabotaging constitutional values 

Against this backdrop, there appears an important question: Why can’t we build a culture that respects and upholds constitutional values? 

When government departments chase short-term benefits, and people are forced to challenge those decisions on constitutional grounds, it creates a climate where cases are filed against almost every governmental move. This leads to growing public distrust and a loss of faith in the government. 

Yet, the PIL should not turn into a tool to earn publicity; it should not become something like “Publicity/Private-Interest Litigation.” In essence, it should be a virtuous weapon in the hands of the weak.

The way forward

The PIL is an effective tool to lower the barriers and augment trust between judiciary and people. Its sole purpose is to uphold the rule of law and constitutional values. 

In a constitutional democracy, government actions should reflect moral values, constitutional rights and well-established principles. Introducing bills that promote bigamy or seek pardons for serious criminals will only lead to more PILs in the future—just like we have seen in the past. 

The authors are judicial officers at Morang district court, Biratnagar

 https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/57546/ 

 

Critical legal studies: How it reflects Nepal’s political reality (#CLS)

 As a law teacher, my duty is to inspire hope and integrity in my students, not despair. But it's hard to stay hopeful when the system is so broken. Nepal needs real change.

By Jivesh Jha

Published - 12 July, 2025 (The DMN News)

As a faculty member teaching Jurisprudence at a government university in Biratnagar, I once delivered a lecture on Critical Legal Studies (CLS). To my surprise, midway through the session, several students stood up and remarked: “Sir, this is the best theory—especially when seen in Nepal’s context. It truly reflects our reality.” Their spontaneous agreement startled me, but upon reflection, I realized they had a point.

What is Critical Legal Studies (CLS)? Why does it resonate with Nepal’s reality?

The Critical Legal Studies movement, which emerged in the United States during the 1970s, fundamentally questions the neutrality, objectivity, and apolitical nature of law. Its scholars argue that law is not a fixed, impartial system but a reflection of existing social, economic, and political power structures. Law, they suggest, is shaped and manipulated to serve the interests of the powerful—whether they be the wealthy or the politically connected.

My students—most of whom are practicing lawyers and respected advocates in eastern Nepal—believe that CLS accurately captures Nepal’s socio-political landscape. According to them, the state machinery here has turned into a safe haven for the well-connected persons. Political appointments dominate public offices; merit, competence, or academic excellence often take a backseat.

Unfortunately, it’s rarely seen that a top university graduate or subject expert is being appointed to a significant government position. Instead, political cadres, often with unimpressive academic records, secure such roles with ease.

Understanding Critical Legal Studies

Theorists within the CLS movement assert that law is neither neutral nor objective. Rather, it reinforces the dominance of those already in power. Law, they argue, becomes a subtle instrument of social control, preserving the status quo and protecting entrenched interests.

Duncan Kennedy, a pioneer of CLS and Professor at Harvard Law School, argued that legal education itself perpetuates class divisions by reinforcing ruling ideologies. In his view, rights are frequently symbolic—creating an illusion of empowerment while maintaining existing hierarchies. True reform, he said, requires democratizing law and society.

Roberto Unger, also a Harvard professor, claimed that legal reasoning is inherently political, shaped by ongoing social and economic conflicts. Similarly, Mark Tushnet maintained that constitutional rights can act as tools of political control rather than liberation. Morton Horwitz emphasized that the law changes not because of timeless principles but because of shifts in political and economic power.

Nepali context

CLS theory fits Nepal’s reality uncomfortably well.

In Nepal, politics affects the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This isn’t just an opinion—it’s something many people notice. Where else does a former Member of Parliament (MP) so easily switch sides to join another part of the government? This kind of thing mostly happens exclusively in Nepal.

Appointments to crucial state bodies—whether constitutional commissions, regulatory authorities, or high bureaucratic positions—are often based on political loyalty rather than competence. The political background of these appointees is an open secret. Yet, we still expect them to deliver neutrality and fairness. Is this realistic?

According to CLS supporters, such a scenario is precisely what the theory predicts: law and governance structures in such systems serve to maintain the control of political elites. Given Nepal’s present condition, I find little ground to disagree. In Nepal, CLS is not just a theory—it seems to describe our daily reality.

As a law teacher, my duty is to inspire hope and integrity in my students, not despair. But it’s hard to stay hopeful when the system is so broken. Nepal needs real change—a move from politics based on favors to one based on merit.

Until such reforms materialize, Critical Legal Studies will remain painfully accurate in explaining Nepal’s legal and political machinery. The theory rings especially true here, where political favoritism is entrenched in almost every sphere of national life.

Jivesh Jha is a Part-time Faculty of Law at Manmohan Technical University.

https://thedmnnews.com/critical-legal-studies-how-it-reflects-nepals-political-reality/ 

 

Anti-drug day or empty ritual?

 By: Jivesh Jha & Bishnu Chandra Nepali

Published: June 26, 2025 (The Annapurna Express) 

As we mark the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking on June 26 this year, it is the right time to reflect on our efforts to control drug abuse in Nepal. Even though Nepal has strict laws against drug abuse, the number of drug users in the country is increasing by more than five percent every year. This worrying trend continues even under the federal system where public health falls under the shared responsibility of the central, provincial and local governments.

At present, the Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act, 1976 is a special law governing the use of narcotic and psychotropic substances. Nepal has also been a member of the International Narcotics Control Board since 1987. This law replaced the earlier Intoxicating Substance Act, 2017 (1961) and the Intoxicating Substance Rules, 2019 (1962), meaning drug control was legally recognized even before the 1976 Act.

Despite provisions for heavy fines and even life imprisonment, drug abuse continues to rise. This clearly shows that tougher punishments alone are not enough to solve the abuse problems. There must also be other efforts such as public awareness, counseling, rehabilitation programs, and community support to reduce and prevent drug abuse effectively.

Speaking through data

The data released by the Home Ministry last year suggests that the number of illicit drug abusers in Nepal is increasing by 5.06 percent every year taking the total users to an estimated 156,821 as of mid-April, 2024. As per Nepal Drug Users’ Survey-2020, published by Home Ministry, the number of drug users in the country stood at 130,424 in 2020, which is the increment rate of 5.06 percent annually. If the survey report is something to stand by, the majority of drug abusers (69.5 percent) in Nepal are aged 20-29 years. The proportion of drug users was reported in Bagmati province (35.6 per cent) and lowest portion in Karnali (1.4 percent). 

Rigorous penal regime 

The Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act of 1976 prohibits the cultivation, production, purchase, sale, distribution, export, import, consumption or storage of cannabis/marijuana. The law also bans the cultivation of opium, the manufacture of narcotic drugs and the sale, purchase, possession, trafficking, import or export of such substances.

Section 14 of the 1976 Act outlines the penalties. It stipulates that if any individual found consuming cannabis/marijuana shall be punished with imprisonment for up to one month or fine of up to

Rs 2,000. A person found in consuming opium, coca or other drugs prepared out of them would be sentenced for a jail term of up to one year or up to Rs 10,000 fine. The Act also provides for 2-10 years of jail sentence and fine of Rs 100,000 to Rs 2m on a person found convicted in consuming prohibited drugs other than that of natural or artificial drugs and psychotropic substances. 

Also, if a person is found with marijuana of more than 10 kilograms, the law prescribes a prison term of 2-10 years along with a fine ranging from Rs 15,000 to Rs 100,000.

If a person is found cultivating up to 25 opium or coca plants, he may be sentenced to imprisonment for one to three years and fined between Rs 5,000 and Rs 25,000. But, in case of cultivating more than 25 plants of opium, the stipulated jail term for the said offence stands at three to 10 years of jail term, and fine of Rs 25000 to Rs 200,000. 

In case of trafficking of prohibited drugs, except that of cultivation and consumption of opium, coca or other drugs made out of them, of up to 25 grams, the prison term stipulated is five to up to 10 years and Five to Twenty-Five thousand rupees of fine. But, the jail term of 15 years to life imprisonment and fine of Rs 500,000 to Rs 2,500,000 has been prescribed for causing trafficking of prohibited drugs, except that of cultivation and consumption of opium, coca or other drugs made out of them, of more than 100 grams.  

The way forward 

The researches show that the controlled drugs, which are comparatively less expensive, are mostly used by drug abusers. The misuse of pharmaceutical drugs such as Tramadol (Opidol) tablets/capsules, Nitrazepam (Nitrosun) tablets, Pheniramine maleate (Avil) injections and Promethazine (Phenargan) injections is on the rise.

Importantly, the deployment of digital technologies such as scanners and detection systems could help identify drugs being smuggled either on individuals or within their belongings as they enter or exit Nepal. It’s imperative to have a balanced mechanism/strategy that combines legal enforcement with preventive, rehabilitative and awareness-driven interventions. There could be a new drug justice regime, where health professionals, legal experts, psychiatrists, drug experts, pharmacists and among others collaborate and cooperate, to evolve mechanisms to fight against drug abuse.  

There could be no one-size-fits-all solution to tackle drug abuse. A balanced approach is needed—combining strict laws, public awareness about legal and health risks, and understanding the financial and career impacts of drug use. Observing the International Day against Drug Abuse holds real meaning only if we can reduce drug abuse and its harmful effects in everyday life.

The authors are officers serving in the judiciary

लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसन र विद्यमान कानुनी व्यवस्था

विष्णुचन्द्र नेपाली/जीवेश झा

२o८२ असार १२ बिहीबार (June 26, 2025) नयाँ पत्रिका (Naya Patrika)

कडा कानुनका बाबजुद लागुपदार्थ दुर्व्यसनको बढ्दो दरले सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य र कानुनी व्यवस्थालाई समेत चुनौती दिएको छ

कडा कानुनका बाबजुद नेपालमा युवामाझ लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसन बढिरहेको छ । जिल्ला अदालतमा लागुऔषधजन्य पदार्थसँग सम्बन्धित मुद्दाको बढ्दो चाप र लागुपदार्थ प्रयोगकर्तामा पाँच प्रतिशतभन्दा बढीको वार्षिक वृद्धिदरले थप प्रभावकारी रणनीतिको तत्काल आवश्यकता रहेको तथ्यलाई औँल्याएको छ ।

लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसनविरुद्धको लडाइँ जित्न पुनर्स्थापनात्मक दृष्टिकोणको खाँचो छ । साथै, लतको सामाजिक, आर्थिक र मनोवैज्ञानिक कारणलाई सम्बोधन गर्न कडा कानुनी व्यवस्था मात्र होइन, बलियो सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य सुधार, जागरुकता अभियान र लक्षित हस्तक्षेपको पनि उत्तिकै जरुरी छ । २६ जुनका दिन अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय लागुपदार्थ तथा अवैध तस्करीविरुद्धको दिवस मनाइरहँदा नेपालमा लागु्पदार्थ दुर्व्यसन नियन्त्रणका लागि गरिएका प्रयासको पुनर्मूल्यांकन, पुन: समीक्षा र पुन: परीक्षण गर्नु आवश्यक छ ।

दुर्व्यसनको आकासिँदो वृद्धिदर : 

लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसन नियन्त्रण र न्यूनीकरण गर्ने उद्देश्यले लागुऔषध (नियन्त्रण) ऐन, २०३३ हाल प्रचलनमा रहेको छ । तर, झन्डै ५० वर्षको कानुनी यात्रा तय गरेको यो कानुनले अपेक्षित लक्ष्य हासिल गर्न सकेको भने छैन । दण्डित गर्ने र लागुऔषध नियमन, नियन्त्रण तथा निषेध गर्नेबाहेक सुधार तथा पुनर्स्थापनाको पाटोबारे आवश्यक पहल गर्न सकेको अवस्था छैन ।

लागुऔषधको दुर्व्यसन हरेक वर्ष बढ्दै गइरहेको छ । नेपालमा सबैभन्दा बढी प्रयोग हुने लागुपदार्थमा भाङ, कोडिनमा आधारित कफ सिरप, नाइट्राजेपाम ट्याब्लेट, गाँजा, ब्राउन सुगर, सुर्ती, चुरोट, रक्सी आदि रहेका छन् । लागुपदार्थका सुईसमेत लगाउने गरेकाले यसबाट एचआइभी संक्रमणसमेत हुने गरेको छ ।

लागुऔषध (नियन्त्रण) ऐन, २०३३ ले औषधि तथा औषधिजन्य उत्पादनको दुरुपयोग गर्न निषेध गर्नुका साथै लागुऔषधको प्रयोगसम्बन्धी भ्रामक सूचना प्रवाह गर्नसमेत निषेध गरेको छ । ऐनले सार्वजनिक प्रयोगका लागि असुरक्षित हुने औषधिको उत्पादन, बजारीकरण, वितरण, निर्यात, आयात, भण्डारण र उपयोगलाई पनि नियमन गर्छ । ऐनले मादक पदार्थ र साइकोट्रोपिक पदार्थको प्रयोगलाई निषेध गरेको छ । सन् १९८७ देखि नेपाल अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय नार्कोटिक्स नियन्त्रण बोर्डको पक्ष राष्ट्रसमेत रहँदै आएको छ ।

सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य संघ, प्रदेश र स्थानीय गरी तीनै तहका सरकारको क्षेत्राधिकारभित्र रहेको छ । यसरी, संविधानले सबै तहका सरकारलाई सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य सुधारको दिशामा उचित कार्य गर्न साझा जिम्मेवारी तोकेको पाइन्छ । विशेषगरी, अनुसूची–९ मा स्वास्थ्यलाई राष्ट्रिय महŒवको विषयका रूपमा सूचीकृत गरिएको छ । आधारभूत स्वास्थ्य र सरसफाइ स्थानीय तहको अधिकार क्षेत्रमा पर्छ ।

दुरुपयोगको तथ्यांक : 

कानुन कडा भए पनि लागुऔषधको दुरुपयोग दिन–प्रतिदिन बढिरहेको छ । नेपालमा अवैध लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्ता हरेक वर्ष ५.०६ प्रतिशतले वृद्धि हुँदै गएका छन् भने ०८१ वैशाखसम्ममा कुल प्रयोगकर्ता एक लाख ५६ हजार आठ सय २१ पुगेको गृह मन्त्रालयले सार्वजनिक गरेको तथ्यांकमा उल्लेख छ । गृह मन्त्रालयले सार्वजनिक गरेको नेपाल लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्ता सर्वेक्षण–२०२० अनुसार सन् २०२० मा नेपालमा लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्ताको संख्या एक लाख ३० हजार ४२४ रहेको थियो र त्यसमा वार्षिक ५.०६ प्रतिशतले वृद्धि भएको हो । सर्वेक्षणको प्रतिवेदनलाई आधार मान्ने हो भने नेपालमा लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्तामध्ये अधिकांश (६९.५ प्रतिशत) २० देखि २९ वर्ष उमेर समूहका छन् । बागमती प्रदेशमा ३५.६ प्रतिशत र सबैभन्दा कम कर्णाली प्रदेशमा १.४ प्रतिशत लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्ता रहेका छन् ।

लागुऔषध नियन्त्रणसम्बन्धी राष्ट्रिय नीति, २०६३ ले सहरी क्षेत्रका महिलामा लागुऔषधको कुलत बढ्दै गएको देखाएको छ । अनुसन्धानले यौनकार्यमा संलग्न महिला र लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्तामा एचआइभी संक्रमणसमेत वृद्धि भएको देखाएको छ ।

दण्ड र सजाय :

 लागुऔषध (नियन्त्रण) ऐन, २०३३ ले गाँजा/गाँजाको खेती, उत्पादन, खरिद बिक्री, वितरण, निकासी, पैठारी, उपभोग वा भण्डारण गर्न निषेध गरेको छ । त्यस्तै कानुनले अफिमको खेती, लागुऔषध उत्पादन र त्यस्ता पदार्थको बिक्री, खरिद, भण्डारण, ओसारपसार, पैठारी वा निर्यातमा पनि प्रतिबन्ध लगाएको छ ।

ऐनको दफा १४ मा दण्ड सजायको व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । कुनै व्यक्तिले गाँजा वा गाँजा सेवन गरेको पाइएमा एक महिनासम्म कैद वा दुई हजार रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । त्यस्तै अफिम, कोका वा त्यसबाट तयार पारिएका अन्य लागुऔषध सेवन गरेको पाइएमा एक वर्षसम्म कैद वा दश हजार रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ ।

प्राकृतिक वा कृत्रिम औषधि तथा साइकोट्रोपिक पदार्थको सेवन गरेमा दुई महिनासम्म कैद वा दुई हजार रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना वा दुवै सजाय हुने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । प्राकृतिक वा कृत्रिम औषधि र साइकोट्रोपिक पदार्थबाहेक अन्य निषेधित औषधि सेवन गरेको पाइएमा दुई वर्षदेखि दश वर्षसम्म कैद र एक लाखदेखि २० लाखसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था पनि ऐनमा गरिएको छ ।

यसबाहेक, भाङ/गाँजा, अफिम र कोकाको खेती पनि दण्डनीय अपराध हो । भाङ/गाँजाको तयारी, उत्पादन, निर्यात, आयात, तस्करी वा भण्डारण दण्डनीय छ । उदाहरणका लागि २५ बोटसम्म गाँजा खेती गरेको पाइएमा तीन महिनासम्म कैद वा तीन हजार रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ । दुई किलोदेखि दश किलोसम्म गाँजा उत्पादन, तयारी, बिक्री–वितरण, ओसार–पसार वा भण्डारण गरेको पाइएमा एक वर्षदेखि तीन वर्षसम्म कैद र पाँच हजार रुपैयाँदेखि पच्चीस हजार रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ । त्यस्तै, दश किलोभन्दा बढी जतिसुकै पाइएमा दुई वर्षदेखि १० वर्षसम्म कैद र १५ हजार रुपैयाँदेखि एक लाख रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ । 

अफिम खेतीलाई पनि दण्डनीय अपराध मानिएको छ । कसैले अफिम वा कोकाको २५ बोटसम्म खेती गरेको पाइएमा एक वर्षदेखि तीन वर्षसम्म कैद र पाँच हजार रुपैयाँदेखि २५ हजार रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ भने पच्चीसभन्दा बढी बोट अफिम खेती गरेमा तीन वर्षदेखि दश वर्षसम्म कैद र २५ हजार रुपैयाँदेखि दुई लाखसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ । 

अफिम, कोका वा त्यसबाट बनेको अन्य लागुऔषधको खेती र सेवनबाहेक २५ ग्रामसम्मको प्रतिबन्धित लागुऔषधको ओसारपसार गरेमा पाँच वर्षदेखि दश वर्षसम्म कैद र पाँच हजारदेखि २५ हजार रुपैयाँसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ । एक सय ग्रामभन्दा बढीको अफिम, कोका वा अन्य लागुऔषधको खेती र सेवनबाहेक अन्य निषेधित लागुऔषधको ओसारपसार गरेमा १५ वर्षदेखि जन्मकैद र पाँच लाखदेखि २५ लाखसम्म जरिवाना हुने व्यवस्था छ ।

दफा १८ को कानुनले लागुऔषध ओसारपसार/ओसारपसारमा प्रयोग हुने हवाईजहाज र रेलबाहेक अन्य कुनै पनि सवारीसाधन जफत हुन सक्ने व्यवस्था गरेको छ । कानुनमा कसुरदार ठहर भएपछि प्रतिवादीलाई लाग्ने कुल जरिवानाको २० प्रतिशत रकम लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसनबारे सूचना दिने व्यक्तिलाई पुरस्कारस्वरूप दिइने व्यवस्था छ ।

रोकथाम र संस्थागत प्रयास :

 लागुपदार्थको अवैध उत्पादन, प्रयोग वा ओसारपसारलाई नियन्त्रण गर्न कुनै एक मात्र अचुक उपाय हुन सक्दैन । नेपालमा व्यक्तिगत उपभोगका लागि अवैध लागुऔषध राख्ने, प्रयोग गर्ने र प्राप्त गर्ने कार्यलाई अपराधीकरण गरिएको छ । तुलनात्मक रूपमा अलि सस्तो निषेधित औषधी प्राय: लागुपदार्थ दुर्व्यसनीले प्रयोग गर्ने गरेको अनुसन्धानले देखाएको छ । ट्रामाडोल ट्याब्लेट/क्याप्सुल, नाइट्राजेपाम (नाइट्रोसन) ट्याब्लेट, फेनार्गन र प्रोमेथाजिन (फेनार्गन) इन्जेक्सनजस्ता लागुऔषधजन्य औषधीको दुरुपयोग बढ्दो छ । औषधी व्यवस्था विभागले २५ साउन, ०७५ मा एक निर्देशन जारी गर्दै ट्रामाडोललाई अस्पतालको फार्मेसी आउटलेटमार्फत मात्र बिक्री गर्न निर्देशन दिएको थियो ।  भारतीय सीमावर्ती सहरमा लागुपदार्थको उपलब्धता र भारतसँगको खुला सीमा सम्बन्धका कारण पनि लागुपदार्थको दुर्व्यसन बढिरहेको छ । भारतीय प्रहरी, प्रशासनसँगको समन्वय र सहयोगले भारतीय बजारमा लागुऔषध सहज उपलब्धतामाथि अंकुश लगाई सोको नेपालतर्फको आयातमाथि रोक लगाउन सकिन्छ । लागुऔषध आयातमा रोक लगाउन सीमा नाकामा विभिन्न प्रविधिको प्रयोगसमेत गर्न सकिन्छ । 

सार्वजनिक तथा निजी दुवै प्रकारका सुविधासम्पन्न पुनर्स्थापना केन्द्र स्थापना गर्नु पनि उत्तिकै आवश्यक छ । स्थानीय सरकार, सरोकारवाला र गैरसरकारी संस्थाले लागुपदार्थ प्रयोगका जोखिमबारे जनतालाई सुसूचित गर्न विशेषज्ञको नेतृत्वमा प्रशिक्षण सत्र र राष्ट्रव्यापी जागरुकता अभियानसहित विभिन्न कार्यक्रम सञ्चालन गर्न सक्छन् । 

नेपाल सरकार, गृह मन्त्रालयले ०७६ मा गरेको एक अनुसन्धान (सर्वेक्षण–२०७६) अनुसार ५६.१ प्रतिशत लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्ता परिवारिक प्रभावबाट दुर्व्यसनमुक्त भएका छन् । आर्थिक कठिनाइ (३६.५ प्रतिशत), रोग वा शारीरिक कमजोरी (२२.७ प्रतिशत), भविष्यको चिन्ता (१६.० प्रतिशत), लागुपदार्थको प्रयोग गलत रहेछ भन्ने विश्वास (९.५ प्रतिशत), स्वास्थ्य समस्या (६.२ प्रतिशत), प्रहरीद्वारा गिरफ्तार गरिएको (५.९ प्रतिशत) र अन्य कारण (१.३ प्रतिशत) ले समेत लागुपदार्थ प्रयोगमा कमी आएको सो अध्ययनमा उल्लेख छ । अध्ययनलाई मान्ने हो भने पारिवारिक प्रभावकै ठुलो योगदान रहेछ, दुव्र्ययसन दर घटाउनमा । पारिवारिक सहयोग, सद्भाव र स्नेहले पनि ठुलो अस्त्रका रूपमा काम गर्ने हुनाले दुर्व्यसनीसँगको राम्रो व्यवहार र स्नेहले समेत सकारात्मक नतिजा ल्याउन सक्छ । सरकारको सशक्त वार्षिक कार्यक्रम र उपयुक्त बजेट विनियोजनले समेत लागुऔषधविरुद्धको लडाइँ लड्न मद्दत पुग्न सक्छ । हालको बजेट विनियोजन पर्याप्त छ कि छैन वा लागुपदार्थ दुर्व्यसनविरुद्धको प्रयासलाई बलियो बनाउन रणनीतिक सुधार आवश्यक छ कि छैन सोसम्बन्धी अध्ययन हुन आवश्यक छ । 

एक लोक कल्याणकारी राज्यको हैसियतले लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसनको रोकथाम र न्यूनीकरणका लागि प्रभावकारी रूपमा व्यापक उपाय लागू गर्ने दायित्व र अवसर दुवै हामीसँग छ । राष्ट्रिय नीति, सुदृढ स्वास्थ्य सेवा शिक्षा, चुस्त दुरुस्त कानुन र पुनर्स्थापनाको उचित प्रयासले सकारात्मक नतिजा दिन सक्छ । 

अबको बाटो : 

लागुऔषध (नियन्त्रण) ऐन, २०३३ जस्ता कडा कानुनका बाबजुद पनि लागुपदार्थ दुर्व्यसनको बढ्दो प्रवृत्तिले सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य र कानुनलाई चुनौती दिएको अवस्था छ । लागुऔषध प्रयोगकर्ताको दिन–प्रतिदिन वृद्धि, औषधीजन्य पदार्थको बढ्दो दुरुपयोग, सुधारका लागि बहुआयामिक पहलको कमीले सरकार चुकेको स्पष्ट हुन आउँछ । लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसनविरुद्धको युद्ध जित्न कडा दण्डात्मक कानुनी प्रावधान मात्र पर्याप्त हतियार हुन सक्दैन । कानुनी प्रावधान, पुनर्स्थापनाका लागि प्रयास र जागरुकतासमेतको कदम उत्तिकै आवश्यक छ । सरकार, नागरिक समाज र स्वास्थ्य क्षेत्रका सबै तहको सहभागितामा समन्वयात्मक प्रयास नगरेसम्म लागुऔषध दुर्व्यसनविरुद्धको लडाइँ जित्न कठिन छ ।

(लेखकद्वय न्याय सेवाअन्तर्गत अदालतमा कार्यरत शाखा अधिकृत हुन्) 

https://www.nayapatrikadaily.com/news-details/171274/2025-06-26

हरित गणतन्त्रका लागि संविधानको पूर्ण कार्यान्वयन

जीवेश झा/विष्णुचन्द्र नेपाली

२o८२ जेठ ३० शुक्रबार (नयाँ पत्रिका)

संविधानमा समाविष्ट हरित गणतन्त्रको अवधारणालाई मूर्त रूप दिने कानुनी प्रावधानको पूर्ण कार्यान्वयनको खाँचो छ

नेपालको संविधानले वातावरण संरक्षण र प्रवद्र्धनसँग सम्बन्धित मौलिक हकलगायत व्यवस्थालाई समेटी हरित गणतन्त्रको अवधारणा अघि बढाए पनि बढ्दो प्रदूषणको माहामारीले वेला–वेलामा हामीलाई गिजोलिरहेको हुन्छ । 

संविधानको धारा ३० ले प्रदूषकबाट क्षतिपूर्ति भराउनेदेखि वातावरणमा उल्लेख्य सुधारका लागि नागरिकसमेत गम्भीर हुन दायित्व र अवसर दुवै प्रदान गरेको छ । यद्यपि, प्रदूषणको रापले कहिले हाम्रो मुटु पोल्ने समस्या हुने त कहिले श्वासप्रश्वासमा समस्या आउने, त कहिले नाक छोपेर हिँड्न बाध्य हुनुपर्ने हाम्रो सामान्य जीवनचक्र बनेको छ । आखिरमा यो कसको गल्ती हो त ? सरकार, जनता वा कानुनको ? हरेक वर्षझैँ यस वर्ष पनि ५ जुनमा विश्व वातावरण दिवस मनाइयो । तर, यो दिवस मनाउनुको सार्थकता देखिन सकेको छ त हामीकहाँ ?

संवैधानिक व्यवस्था : 

संविधानमा समावेश भएका हरित कानुनी प्रावधानले हरित गणतन्त्रको अवधारणालाई मूर्तरूप दिएका छन् । जसमध्ये सफा वातावरणमा बाँच्न पाउने नागरिकको हकलाई धारा ३० ले समेटेको छ । यस धाराले प्रत्येक नागरिकका स्वच्छ वातावरणमा जीवनयापन गर्न पाउने हक सुनिश्चिततासँगै वातावरणीय प्रदूषणबाट मर्का परेकालाई अदालतमा मुद्दा दायर गरी हक प्रचलन गर्न–गराउन मार्गप्रशस्त गरेको अवस्था छ ।

त्यसैगरी, सफा पानी र सरसफाइको हकलाई धारा ३५ ले प्रत्याभूत गरेको छ भने खाद्य सम्प्रभुताको हकबारे धारा ३६ मा व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । कृषि सुधार वा वातावरण संरक्षणका लागि भूमिसुधार गर्न राज्यलाई उल्लेख्य कदम चाल्न धारा २५ ले जिम्मेवारी तोकेको छ । गुणस्तरीय खाद्यपदार्थ र सेवा प्राप्त गर्ने उपभोक्ताको हकबारे धारा ४४ मा व्यवस्था गरिएको छ ।

यी प्रावधानले वातावरण प्रदूषण हुने वा प्रदूषण गराउने सम्भावना भएका क्रियाकलाप रोक्न र नियन्त्रण गर्न कानुनी आधार प्रदान गरेका छन् । जग्गा–जमिनउपरको प्रदूषण होस् कि खाद्यान स्वच्छताको प्रश्न होस, सफा पानीको प्रश्नमा गम्भीर हुनुपर्ने विषय होस् कि स्वच्छ हावा, पानी र प्राकृतिक वातावरणको विषय होस्, संविधानले वातावरणसँग सम्बन्धित हरेक आयामबारे स्पष्ट व्यवस्था गरेको भए पनि सरकार र जनता दुवै वातावरणीय प्रदूषणविरुद्धको लडाइँमा चुकेको देखिन्छ । साथै, उच्च र सर्वोच्च अदालतलाई वातावरण संरक्षण र प्रवद्र्धनका लागि निर्देशन, आदेश, निर्णय वा परमादेश जारी गर्न सक्ने अधिकार प्रदान गरिएको छ । यसरी संविधानले नै स्वस्थ वातावरणमा बाँच्न पाउने अधिकारलाई मानव अधिकारको मूल हकका रूपमा ग्यारेन्टी गरेको छ ।

न्यायिक दृष्टिकोण :

 जनहित संरक्षण मञ्च (प्रो पब्लिक) विरुद्ध नेपाल सरकार भएको ऐतिहासिक मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले इँटाभट्टाबाट हुने प्रदूषणले जनघनत्व भएका क्षेत्र, विद्यालय, सांस्कृतिक र पर्यटकीय क्षेत्रमा असर पार्ने भएकाले यस्ता क्षेत्रमा प्रदूषण न्यूनीकरणका लागि प्राथमिकता दिनुपर्ने आदेश दिएको थियो । अदालतले सरकारलाई विभिन्न मन्त्रालयका प्रतिनिधि मिलाएर टोली गठन गर्न निर्देशन दियो, जसको उद्देश्य वातावरण प्रदूषण गर्ने उद्योग, प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण यन्त्र जडान गरेका र नगरेका उद्योगको विवरण संकलन गर्नु थियो । साथै, सरकारले इँटाभट्टा बन्द गर्दा राष्ट्रिय निर्माण तथा विकास कार्यमा पर्ने असरको मूल्यांकन गर्न र यसका विकल्पको अध्ययन गर्न पनि आदेश दिएको थियो ।

भारतमा इँटाभट्टालाई उत्तर प्रदेश राज्यअन्तर्गतको आगराको ताजमहलबाट २० देखि २०० किलोमिटर टाढा सञ्चालन गर्न अनुमति दिइएको छ । यस्तो प्रावधान र सोच नीति–निर्माताबाट आएको नभई भारतीय सर्वोच्च अदालतले एमसी मेहताविरुद्ध भारत सरकार भएको मुद्दामा दिएको अन्तिम आदेशको उपज हो ।

त्यस्तै, सूर्यप्रसाद शर्मा ढुंगेलविरुद्ध गोदावरी मार्बल उद्योग प्रालि (ने.का.प २०५२, भाग १ अंक १ निर्णय नं. ०४) भएको मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले प्रदूषित वातावरणमा मानव जीवन संकटमा पर्ने भन्दै वातावरण संरक्षणले नै मानव जीवनको संरक्षण गर्ने सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादन गरेको पाइन्छ । ‘प्रदूषित वातावरणमा मानव जीवन खतरामा हुन्छ । प्रदूषित वातावरणको सिर्जनाबाट कुनै पनि व्यक्तिको जिउज्यानको अपहरण हुन्छ । त्यस्तो प्रदूषित वातावरणबाट मुक्ति पाउनु व्यक्तिको अधिकार हो । यस अर्थमा पर्यावरण संरक्षणको सम्बन्ध परोक्ष रूपमा मानिसको जिउज्यानसँग सम्बन्धित हुँदा प्रस्तुत विषय नेपाल संविधानभित्र समावेश भएको मान्नुपर्ने ।’ भनी सर्वोच्च अदालतले सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादन गरेको देखिन्छ । उक्त मुद्दामा गोदावरी डाँडाबाट गोदावरी मार्बल उद्योगद्वारा मार्बल उत्खनन रोक्न माग गर्दै रिट दायर गरिएको थियो । अदालतले यस उत्खननले वन विनाश, बाढी तथा प्रतिकूल परिस्थिति निम्त्याउने निष्कर्ष निकालेको थियो ।

सो मुद्दामा, ‘गोदावरी क्षेत्रको पर्यावरण संरक्षणजस्तो संवेदनशील, मानवीय, राष्ट्रिय र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय महत्वको विषयमा उपर्युक्त निष्कर्षअनुसार प्रभावकारी र सन्तोषजनक उपचारात्मक कार्य पनि भएको नदेखिँदा त्यसलाई समेत मध्यनजर राखी लागू नभएको खनिज पदार्थ ऐन, ०४२ लागू गर्न, वायु, जल, ध्वनि एवं पर्यावरण संरक्षण गर्न आवश्यक कानुन तर्जुमा हुन र गोदावरी क्षेत्रको पर्यावरण प्रभावकारी ढंगले संरक्षणतर्फ कारबाही गर्ने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा निर्देशन दिन उपयुक्त देखिएकाले विपक्षीका नाउँमा यो निर्देशनात्मक आदेश जारी गरिएको’ थियो । केदारभक्त श्रेष्ठविरुद्ध यातायात विभागसमेत (२०५८) विपक्षी रहेको मुद्दामा सर्वोच्च अदालतले नयाँ डिजेल टेम्पो काठमाडौंबाहिर समेत दर्ता नगर्ने सरकारको कदमलाई जायज ठहर गरेको थियो । यसैगरी, धार्मिक, ऐतिहासिक र सांस्कृतिक महत्व बोकेको विष्णुमती नदीमा भएको प्रदूषणविरुद्धमा भरतमणि गौतमले नेपाल सरकारलाई विपक्षी बनाई रिट दायर गरेका थिए । राष्ट्रिय महत्व बोकेको सम्पदाको संरक्षण, नदीको सफाइ, खानेपानीको सुनिश्चितता र वातावरणमैत्री रूपमा फोहर व्यवस्थापन गर्नुपर्ने दायित्व सरकारको रहेको ठहर गरी सो मुद्दामा न्याय निरूपण भएको थियो ।

अधिवक्ता भोजराज ऐरसमेत विरुद्ध प्रधानमन्त्री, प्रधानमन्त्री तथा मन्त्रीपरिषद्को कार्यालयसमेत भएको परमदेश (भाग : ४६ साल : २०६१ अंक : १०, निर्णय नं. ७४५३) मुद्दामा, सर्वोच्च अदालतले काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको वातावरण दिन–प्रतिदिन प्रदूषित बन्दै गइरहेको भन्ने तथ्य विभिन्न अध्ययन अनुसन्धानबाट स्थापित भइरहेको र यसबाट वैयक्तिक स्वतन्त्रताको हकअन्तर्गत अन्तर्निहित स्वच्छ एवं स्वस्थ वातावरणमा बाँच्न पाउने अधिकार एवं वातावरण संरक्षण ऐनले स्वच्छ एवं स्वस्थ वातावरण कायम गर्न प्रत्याभूत गरेको व्यवस्थामा समेत नकारात्मक असर परिरहेको सन्दर्भमा प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण गर्ने कार्यका लागि कोष खडा गर्ने उद्देश्यले पेट्रोलियम पदार्थको हाल कायम मूल्यबाटै वा उपभोक्तालाई सकेसम्म थप आर्थिक भार नपर्ने गरी अन्य उपयुक्त तरिकाबाट प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण कोष खडा गर्ने व्यवस्था मिलाउन ऐनको उपर्युक्त व्यवस्था लागू हुने मिति नेपाल राजपत्रमा सूचना प्रकाशन गरी तोक्न सरकारको नाउँमा निर्देशनात्मक आदेश जारी गरेको थियो ।

यसरी, सर्वोच्च न्यायालयबाट लगभग २१ वर्षपहिले भएको आदेशको पनि पूर्ण कार्यान्वयन अझै हुन सकेको अवस्था छैन । काठमाडौं विश्वका मुख्य प्रदूषित सहरमध्ये अग्रणी स्थानमा पर्छ भन्ने विभिन्न अध्ययन प्रतिवेदनले देखाउँदै आएको र त्यसको ध्यानाकर्षण अदालतले समेत सरकारलाई समय–समयमा गराइरहेको अवस्थामा समेत वातावरण प्रदूषणमा रोकथाम हुन सकेको स्थिति छैन । 

दुई दशकपहिले पनि स्थिति त्यही थियो र अहिले पनि स्थिति त्यही छ । परिवर्तन भएको त फगत राजनीति हो । वातावरण त प्रदूषण थियो, छ र रहिरहने नै देखियो ।

सैद्धान्तिक दृष्टिकोण :

 सार्वजनिक न्यासको सिद्धान्त र राज्यको अभिभावकीय सिद्धान्तको अवधारणा एक–अर्काको परिपूरकका रूपमा रहेका छन् । प्राचीन रोमन साम्राज्यकालदेखि नै विकसित हुँदै आएको सार्वजनिक न्यासको सिद्धान्तअनुरूप सबै जनताको सम्पत्ति एवं नासोका रूपमा रहेका सडक, सरकारी घर, नदीनाला, जंगल, ताल, पोखरी, कुवा, पानी, पँधेरो, गौचर, चिहान, पाटीपौवा, खेल मैदान, पर्ती जग्गाजस्ता सबै जनताले सहज पहुँच एवं उपभोग गर्न पाउने सम्पत्तिलाई सबैको साझा सम्पदाका रूपमा लिनुपर्छ । यी वस्तुलाई प्राकृतिक वरदानका रूपमा लिँदै जुनसुकै प्रकारको हैसियतका भए पनि सबै नागरिकले समान रूपमा यो प्रयोग गर्न पाउनुपर्छ । यस्ता प्राकृतिक स्रोत सम्पदाको प्रभावकारी रूपमा व्यवस्थापन एवं संरक्षण गरी भावी पुस्ताको प्रयोगका लागि सुरक्षित राख्नु तथा दुरुपयोग भएमा वा गलत रूपमा प्रयोग भएमा त्यसविरुद्ध नागरिकलाई प्रश्न उठाउने अधिकार प्रदान गर्नु पनि यही सिद्धान्तको अवधारणाले समेटेको देखिन्छ । यसैगरी, राज्यको अभिभावकीय सिद्धान्तअन्तर्गत राज्यले उल्लिखित प्राकृतिक स्रोत–साधनको संरक्षकत्वको जिम्मेवारी लिनुपर्छ । राज्य केबल संरक्षककर्ता मात्र मानिन्छ । राज्यले चाहेर पनि यस्ता सम्पत्तिको स्वामित्व कसैमा हस्तान्तरण गर्न नसक्ने भनी नरोत्तम रानाविरुद्ध नेपाल सरकार मन्त्रिपरिषद्, प्रधानमन्त्री तथा मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सचिवालय (ने.का.प २०६६, भाग ५१, अंक १२ निर्णय नं. ८२८०) मुद्दामा सम्मानित सर्वोच्च अदालतबाट सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादन भएको छ ।

अबको बाटो : 

यसरी संवैधानिक तथा सैद्धान्तिक दृष्टिकोणसमेतको आलोकमा हेर्दा वातावरणीय सम्पत्तिको संरक्षकको भूमिकामा राज्य उभिनैपर्छ । वातावरण संरक्षण जनहितका लागि आवश्यक छ । वर्तमान र भविष्यका पुस्ताका हकमा यी स्रोतको संरक्षण गर्नु राज्यको परम कर्तव्य हो र यो कर्तव्यबाट विमुख भएको खण्डमा संविधान तथा प्रचलित कानुनमाथि धाबा बोलिएको सन्देश राष्ट्रिय तथा अन्तर्राष्ट्रियस्तरमा पुग्न सक्छ । यस्तो अवस्थामा नागरिकको स्वास्थ्यसमेतमा प्रतिकूल असर परी सुशासन, समृद्धि र विकासको पथमा लम्किन पनि असहज हुने हुँदा वातावरण संरक्षणमा राज्यका हरेक निकाय गम्भीर हुनुको विकल्प छैन । 

हरित लोकतन्त्रका निम्ति संविधानमा समावेश भएका हरित कानुनलाई सक्रिय रूपमा कार्यान्वयन गर्न चुक्नु हुँदैन ।

भारतमा झैँ स्नातक तहको सबै कोर्समा वातावरण शिक्षा अनिवार्य रूपमा पढाइनुपर्छ । पालिकाले विभिन्न किसिमका सन्देशमूलक सूचना सम्प्रेषण गरी नागरिकलाई वृक्षरोपणलगायत वातावरण संरक्षणको सवालमा सजग बनाउन अहं भूमिका खेल्नुपर्छ ।

सरकारी कार्यालयमा कम्तीमा ५० बोटबिरुवा संरक्षित गर्नैपर्ने गरी नीति ल्याउन सकिन्छ । सरकारले वातावरण संरक्षणमा उल्लेख्य योगदान पुर्‍याउने संस्था वा व्यक्तिलाई समय–समयमा पुरस्कृत गर्ने परिपाटीको समेत थालनी गरिएमा साकारात्मक नतिजा आउने हुन्छ । जनचेतना र जनप्रतिबद्धताविना प्रदूषणरहित वातावरणको परिकल्पना केवल दिवास्वप्न मात्र हुनेछ ।

अतः विकास र वातावरण संरक्षणबिच सन्तुलन कायम गरी विकास र वातावरण संरक्षण दुवैलाई राष्ट्रिय उद्देश्यका रूपमा लिएर संविधानले निर्दृष्ट गरेको मार्ग अवलम्बन गरी सुखी नेपाली, समृद्ध नेपालको अवधारणालाई थप मलजल दिन ढिला नगरौँ । 

प्रदूषण सरकार र नागरिक दुवैको साझा शत्रु हो । 

प्रदूषणविरुद्धको लडाइँमा सबै एकजुट नभए वातावरणीय संरक्षण असम्भव कार्यको रूपमा परिणत हुने हुँदा सबै मिली वातावरण संरक्षणमा सकारात्मक योगदान पुर्‍याउनुपर्ने वेला आएको छ । ढिलो गरे राज्यप्रतिको बेइमानी हुनेछ । 

(लेखकद्वय न्याय सेवा (अदालत) मा शाखा अधिकृत पदमा कार्यरत छन्)

https://www.nayapatrikadaily.com/news-details/170172/2025-06-13  

Why are Nepali youths not reading?

There has been a sharp decline in the habit of reading fiction and non-fiction, which are essential for building language and critical thinking skills. Reels and short videos have become main source of entertainment and emotional satisfaction.

By Jivesh Jha 

Published - 30 April, 2025 (The DMN News) 

It is deeply concerning to witness a growing trend among teenagers: they spend an increasing amount of time watching short-form content, such as reels on social media platforms, while allocating far less time to academic responsibilities like completing assignments or preparing for exams.

Ironically, the culture of reading is deteriorating day by day. Many students now prefer thinner guides aimed solely at helping them pass exams, rather than engaging with in-depth reading material that fosters true learning.

Obsession with degrees

In today’s society, academic degrees have become the ultimate goal. It’s not uncommon to find young people holding multiple Master’s degrees or pursuing undergraduate courses simply for the sake of certification, often without genuine interest in the subject. It has become a new normal in Nepal.

Despite charging high tuition fees, many colleges do little to promote a genuine academic environment. Facilities like air-conditioned libraries, flexible reading hours, and access to journals are still lacking, especially in private institutions. Instead of nurturing a love for learning, these institutions often prioritize profit over quality education.

Destruction of quality education

In many private institutions, entertainment and leniency are mistaken for effective teaching. A teacher who avoids scolding students, tells jokes, or leads casual discussions is often considered “good”—not because of the quality of instruction but due to the relaxed atmosphere.

Unfortunately, many institutions prioritize keeping students happy for commercial reasons. In case of conflicts, they tend to side with students—not out of empathy, but to protect their business interests. Students are seen more as revenue sources than as individuals to be educated.

Even more troubling is the performance illusion presented to parents. The private schools and colleges often show mark sheets with high scores to impress guardians, but these grades don’t reflect the students’ actual skills. If marks were a true measure of competence, we would see better results on the ground. The reality is disheartening.

Language barrier and lack of expression

In many schools and colleges across the Tarai-Madhesh region, students struggle to write even a single page coherently in either Nepali or English. Their writing is often riddled with errors. Even degree holders hesitate to write publicly, fearing ridicule for grammatical mistakes or awkward sentence structures.

One of the root causes is a lack of exposure to reading. Students rarely invest time or money in books. Language proficiency—both in Nepali and English—is alarmingly low. Many students switch between “English medium” and “Nepali medium” identities, yet most lack the ability to express themselves clearly in either.

Furthermore, there has been a sharp decline in the habit of reading fiction and non-fiction, which are essential for building language and critical thinking skills. Instead, reels and short videos have become their main source of entertainment and emotional satisfaction.

While advancements in information and communication technology have opened doors to global learning, they have also brought unintended consequences. The widespread availability of smartphones and constant exposure to short videos have significantly contributed to the decline in reading culture.

Parents, preoccupied with work and financial responsibilities, often cannot supervise their children’s screen time. Meanwhile, private educational institutions continue to focus more on marketing and profit than on academic integrity.

Each year, tuition fees are raised without corresponding improvements in educational services. Research would likely reveal that most private institutions reinvest only a fraction of their income into actual learning resources.

Way forward

A significant portion of our youth are spending their valuable time on activities that do little to enrich their minds. Even medical professionals have raised concerns about the negative effects of constant short video consumption on attention span and mental focus.

The government and educational stakeholders need to take urgent action. Awareness campaigns, digital literacy programs, and policies that encourage healthier content consumption habits could play a key role. Investment in libraries, reading programs, and quality teaching must be prioritized if we are to reverse the current trend.

The future of education should not be built on superficial achievements but on meaningful learning. It’s time we rebuild a culture that values knowledge, literacy, and intellectual growth over flashy degrees and digital distractions.

https://thedmnnews.com/why-are-nepali-youths-not-reading/