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.