Submit your Article

Although the Constitution of Nepal stands for fundamental rights, sustainable development and welfare policies, a sweeping wave of unemployment and inflation have pushed the country to a breaking point.

A soaring inflation has caused a brutal impact on the lives, livelihoods and overall well-being of the people. Whatever you purchase these days has inflation attached to it. To mitigate the economic distress resulting from a double impact of inflation and unemployment, the government could have introduced welfare schemes as the constitution has envisaged that all public policies are supposed to be in sync with fundamental rights and directive principles.

Soaring market prices have everyone upset. Tomatoes have become so costly that people have begun comparing them with petrol. In fact, it is a wrong comparison. While petrol costs Rs 175/liter these days, tomatoes cost around Rs 200/kg. In such a situation, governments—central, provincial and local—should have provided some relief to the people.

Constitutional quagmires

Our constitution, which entered into force on 20 Sept 2015, ‘guarantees’ so many rights. It guarantees the right to food (Article 36); right to employment (Article 33); the rights of consumers to have quality goods and services (Article 44), so on and so forth. Over and above all else, it guarantees the right to live a dignified life (Article 16). I wonder why we are not talking about these foundation stones on which the constitution stands.

Inflation has a direct bearing on poverty. The other side of this picture is that some of the adverse effects may have a lasting impact. For instance, a section of the population may suffer from diseases for want of a balanced diet owing to the lack of income or poverty.

On the other hand, people may not be able to educate their kids properly regardless of the right to education enshrined in Article 31 of the constitution as one of the fundamental rights.

All this has the people and their fundamental rights on the receiving end. In today’s federal democratic republic, the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution sound so alien. Gradually, this situation may give rise to public distrust toward constitutional guarantees and government-made promises, thereby fomenting anarchy.

Preamble of the charter

The preamble of the charter obliges the state to end “all forms of discrimination and oppression created by the feudal, autocratic, centralized, and unitary system” for the creation of an “egalitarian society on the basis of the principle of proportional inclusion.” The preamble affirms the sovereignty of “We the people,” committed to fulfilling the “aspirations for perpetual peace, good governance, development and prosperity through the medium of democratic republican system of governance” and thus “hereby promulgate this Constitution through the Constituent Assembly.” The concluding part seeks to unite the citizens in an enduring sense of duty to uphold constitutional norms, not just the ‘loyalty of lip service’.

The Parliamentarians and the provincial leaders must ask themselves whether, as responsible public servants, they have stood up to the constitutional promise of maintaining the concept called “rule of law” and “egalitarianism”.

The governments’ failure to guarantee the fundamental rights (by curbing inflation and by providing jobs) can end up disrobing egalitarianism, the rule of law and the overall objectives of the preamble. 

Way forward

The people should raise their concerns strongly against unscrupulous exploitation of their rights and value their hard-earned money. A culture of accountability and honesty will not flourish in the country unless the consumers themselves become more vigilant.

Article 46 of the constitution empowers every citizen to knock the doors of the Supreme Court (Article 133) or High Courts (Article 144) for the realization of fundamental rights. Article 48 casts a fundamental duty on every citizen to abide by the constitution and the prevailing laws. 

Do we care about these provisions?

The governments’ failure to curb inflation or their failure to introduce welfare schemes amidst rising inflation reflects poorly on our political leaders. For them, nothing else matters save absolute power, it appears. This has a profound negative bearing on the entire democratic system of governance.

To protect fundamental rights, the government should rein in food inflation. There should be frequent administrative checks on retail prices, hoarding of food commodities and unabated smuggling of food items to the neighborhood.

Escalating food prices are especially worrisome as they undermine the right to food.  The mismanagement of the economy and lawlessness should not be the hallmarks of our federal democracy.

Margaret Thatcher, a British politician, had rightly said, “The Constitution has to be written on hearts, not just paper.” If we really want to live and breathe in a democracy, our constitution must be acknowledged in letter and spirit.   

It’s high time to realize that the country cannot survive with uncontrolled inflation and frequent disruption of constitutional mandates, especially given that Nepal is an ancient country of sustainable development-friendly people.

Take a pledge to implement the constitution, for the country deserves the rule of law. As George Washington has said, “The constitution is the guide which I will never abandon,” the time has come for every Nepali, including leaders and Ministers, to take the same solemn pledge.

The Environment Protection Act, 2019 is a comprehensive piece of legislation, enacted primarily to give effect to Article 30 of the Constitution that guarantees the citizens’ right to fresh air and clean environment. Introduced to consolidate environment laws, this Act assures victims of pollution a reasonable amount of compensation from the polluter. The main legislative intentions are to ensure the right to a clean and green environment, maintain balance between environment and development, and protect communities from adverse environmental impacts and climate change. While celebrating World Environment Day (WED) on June 5 with the theme of “Beat Plastic Pollution,” we need to analyze whether we have succeeded or even tried enforcing the green laws meant for protecting the environment. This year’s WED has put on Cote d’ivoire, the host of the event in partnership with the Netherlands,  one more responsibility: To lead a global drive against plastic pollution. In 2018, India hosted the WED with the theme of “Beat Plastic Pollution.” It’s high time for India to realize that their fight against plastic pollution was not robust and their failure made the United Nations Environment Program carry the same slogan in 2023 as well. The 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment laid the foundation for the Environment Day celebration the world over, and has been held yearly on June 5 since 1973. The first WED was held in the USA with the theme of “Only one Earth” in 1974. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration, adopted at the end of WED events held at Stockholm from June 5 to 16 with the participation of 114 states, set the milestone by adopting 26 principles that emphasize pollution control and nature conservation. In 1987, the idea of rotating the center of environmental activities under different themes by selecting different host countries began. A Green Charter The Constitution of Nepal has stipulated the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right.  The charter has specific provisions associated with the environment like the right to live in a clean environment, right to clean water and hygiene; right to food sovereignty; the right of the state to effect land reforms on agriculture and environment; and the right of consumers to have quality foodstuffs and services. The law obliges the state to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. The Supreme Court and High Courts (under Article 133 and 144, respectively) can issue required directives, orders or writs for this purpose. The charter has conferred powers to all tiers of government in this regard. In reference to the charter, the government of Nepal, under schedule-V, entry 27 (Environment management, national parks, wildlife reserves, wetlands, national forest policies, carbon services) and provincial governments, under schedule-VI, entry 19 (Use of forests and waters and management of environment within the state) and both governments under schedule-VII, entries 12 (Ayurvedic medicine, veterinary, Amchi and other professions), 18 (Tourism, water supply and sanitation) & 23 (Utilization of forests, mountains, forest conservation areas and waters stretching in inter-state form) have to  work on issues of ecology, sanitation, clean and healthy water, wildlife conservation and afforestation. The Directive Principles provided in part-IV of the charter call upon the local/provincial governments to adopt policies for the protection of the environment (Article 51). In partnership with the private sector, NGOs, communities, religious and cultural groups, the government can take  measures for environmental conservation.   A climate-friendly polity The Environment Protection Act, 2019, meant to  implement Article 30 of the charter, aims to protect and improve the environment and to mitigate pollution; to enforce the right to a clean environment; to grant compensation to victims of pollution; and to implement EIA, Environmental Study and Environment Examination reports. It imposes on the state duties like setting standards to reduce and regulate emissions, hazardous waste, vehicular pollution, industrial pollution and pollution from  hotels, restaurants and equipment. Unlike the Act of 1997, the 2019 Act has outlined measures for dealing with climate change and controlling the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The center has exclusive jurisdiction over identification of areas emitting GHGs, determination of their national reference level, specification of open or green areas, identification of polluted areas, prevention of development activities therein and participation in carbon trading with foreign countries. Moreover, the Act specifies various roles and functions for provincial governments. Provinces have to develop plans and policies for environmental protection at their levels. Section 3(2)(c) of the Act allows local governments to oversee  related environmental study reports, including EIA. Central and provincial governments can also set up laboratories to test or analyze samples of pollution under Section 18.   Gray area, green judgements The Act has envisaged heavy fines for non-compliance of laws and government policies. Section 35 of the Act stipulates imposing a fine of up to five million rupees at the instance of non-compliance of EIA. Also, defiance of Initial Environmental Examination would lead to a fine of up to one million rupees. A vast discretionary power is given to law enforcing officials. Minimum fine is not fixed leaving vast discretion, so the provision requires correction. The imposition of a minimal fine in violation of this law may help defeat the spirit of law itself. Also, the Act has no provision of reward for those making  exemplary contributions to environment conservation and protection. The Local Government Operation Act, 2017 has given local units the power to enact laws, policies and other measures for the protection and promotion of green democracy. Section 11(2)(i) has given local bodies  the power to adopt and enact measures to curb pollution and to ensure clean water and fresh air. Over the years, the Supreme Court has issued judgments on environmental issues. Decades ago, in Surya Dhungel v Godavari Marbles Pvt Ltd (1995) case, it observed that environmental pollution and degradation would be a threat to living beings, so a healthy environment is a requisite for better human life and livelihood. In Pro Public v HMG Nepal (2006, Decision Number 758) the court  sought immediate steps for decreasing the adverse impact of pollution from brick kilns located around densely populated areas, schools, cultural and touristic zones. Summing up, our green laws are like lampposts and not mere cosmetic arrangements. Nepal deserves to have a truly green democracy. As an ancient country of environment-friendly people, Nepal cannot survive with unsustainable development practices. Environmentalist Keith Hawkins has rightly said: Pollution control is done in a moral, not a technological world. The Himalayan republic has enacted a number of green laws for promoting green democracy. It’s high time to make a pledge for a robust fight against pollution in all forms. The author is a Judicial Officer at Dhanusha District Court, Janakpur [email protected]  

Tort is a civil wrong that is committed by one toward another for which unliquidated damages could be claimed. As it's a private wrong, the injured party herself/himself has to file a suit for compensation. If at any stage, the injured party wishes, s/he may agree to a compromise with the tortfeasor (defendant), and withdraw the suit filed by him. In case of crime, even though the immediate victim is an individual, the criminal wrong is considered to be a public wrong (wrong against the public at large) or wrong against the state. In case of tort, the ends of justice are met by awarding compensation to the injured party. The law of tort is important as it seeks to ensure the right of the persons. However, in Nepal, there is no stringent applicability of the tort law. We often hear people raising their concerns over medical negligence, adulteration of food, environmental pollution or use of loudspeakers that causes nuisance. But people remain reluctant to move the court to resolve these issues by penalizing the outlier.  People just turn a blind eye to these cases. The question is why is there non-applicability of tort law in Nepal? A costlier and time-consuming litigation process often prevents the aggrieved party from seeking compensation under tort law. The lack of pro bono lawyers in this law field could be another factor. More importantly, Nepalis have become habitual of claiming rights without fulfilling their duties. This is the major factor behind violation of people’s rights. However, the state has a duty to create a conducive atmosphere to protect the rights of persons and to implement the tort law. Tort under Civil Code The National Civil Code, 2017 hosts provisions regarding tort law. Section 672(1) provides that no person shall do or cause to do any act or omission, negligently or otherwise, to cause harm to other’s body, property or legally protected interest. This way, tort results from the breach of such duties which are not undertaken by the parties themselves but which are imposed by law. Winfield says the tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law. In the words of Salmond, “Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation.” The Code, 2017 prescribes that guardians would have to bear liability if their child/ward of below 14 or person with insanity commits civil wrong and causes harm to others. Section 675 provides that the employer would be liable for the act or omission of his employees. This arrangement is in recognition of the common law doctrine of “Respondeat Superior” which means master is responsible for the act of his servant. Section 676 provides that the owner of pet animals would be automatically liable for any injury or property damage the pet causes. The law places liability on the house owner for the loss or damage caused to any person as a result of the collapse of the house. These arrangements recognize the concept of vicarious liability which provides that the state, owner or employer would be held liable in respect of loss or damage either to property or to a person. The owner of the concerned property would be liable for the loss or damage caused to any person as a result of an explosion owing to a failure to adopt safety measures, emission of excessive gas, tree lying down, or discharge of any toxic substances (Section 678). Similarly, the owner of a dwelling house would have to bear liability for the loss or damage caused to anyone as a result of any kind of solid waste or goods thrown from his house (Section 679). These arrangements are exceptions of vicarious liability and in recognition of the position laid down by the House of Lords in Rylands v Fletcher (1868). In this case, it was held that the employer could not escape the liability for the damage caused to the plaintiff, when the escape of water from a reservoir which was constructed by the defendant from an independent contractor flooded the plaintiff’s coal mine. Section 680 prescribes that a person who commits trespass to another’s property shall be liable for any loss or damage resulting from his act of trespassing. Section 681 provides that each of such persons would, except as otherwise provided, be jointly and severally liable for any damage caused by that act, in proportion to the culpability of the tort committed by each person. Jurisprudence of tort  Section 682 explicitly and authoritatively envisages that the person who commits the tort shall have to pay compensation to the aggrieved party. The provision intends to ensure real and proximate damages to the aggrieved. This way, it recognizes the doctrine of Remoteness of Damages which suggests that test of reasonable foresight and test of directness should be applied at the time of inflicting liability. Still, the aggrieved party would have to file a lawsuit within six months from the date on which such an act of civil wrong was done against him [Section 684]. In Rigby v Hewit (1850) and Greenland v Chaplin (1850), the Courts of Exchequer, England, held that liability of the defendant is only for those consequences which could have been foreseen by a reasonable man placed in the circumstances of the wrongdoer. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921) case, the Court of Appeal, an English court, held that a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act. In general, the jurisprudence of tort rests on the foundation that “things speak for itself”, which is the basic essence of the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loqitor and where there is right, there is remedy, which is the basic spirit of the doctrine of ubi jus ibi remedium. Implementation matters In the words of jurist Hohfeld, rights come with duties. Salmond was of the view that one cannot claim his rights unless he fulfills his duties. Our actions should not cause harm, injury or annoyance to the other. For instance, if Mr A throws garbage on the street that causes nuisance to Mr B, then in such a case, Mr A would be liable to compensate Mr B for the loss caused to him. After all, “We, the people of Nepal” deserve to have a naturally clean environment and a rule of law state, for the Constitution and prevailing laws aim to achieve a welfare state. The tort law aims to protect the rights of people. It’s more in the nature of compensatory jurisprudence, as it seeks to guarantee compensation to the aggrieved party from the wrongdoer. In a rule of law state, the state agencies and people should not turn a deaf ear to the tort law. [email protected]

It is aptly said, ubi societas ibi jus, i.e., where there is society, there is law. The question as to who uses the machinery of law and for what reasons, continues to be debated upon. Still, the end of law is to secure human justice, rather than ideal justice. From one perspective, the Constitution of Nepal, loaded with democratic principles that have potential to help the country thrive on the path of sovereign democracy, prosperity and tranquility, may be taken as an abstract body of rights and duties. From another perspective, it’s a document of social process, balancing conflicting interests. After all, concepts like federal democracy, independent judiciary, non-discrimination in private and public life, civil supremacy, and judicial review are basic tenets of our constitution. Progressive features  Immanuel Kant says laws are a sum total of conditions under which the personal wishes of one man can be combined with the personal wishes of another man in accordance with the general law of freedom.  Duguit, a jurist of Sociological School of Jurisprudence, argues that law can exist when people live together. The drafters of the constitution have ensured that everyone receives an equal share in our democracy without any distinctions and this conception is in recognition of Aristotle’s distributive justice. Under the new constitution, Nepal’s federal structure is merited with a development that divided the country into seven provinces, with clear lists of legislative powers for the central, provincial and local governments. It sets aside 33 percent of parliamentary seats for women, which is a major breakthrough. The Constitution of Nepal became the first country in Asia to explicitly recognize the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT). The provision of right to equality clearly states that no discrimination shall be made along the lines of sex, or sexual orientation as well. Under the scheme of the new constitution, victims of environmental pollution have a fundamental right to receive compensation from the polluter. Also, it has been provisioned that citizens with disability and economically poor conditions shall have the right to free higher education. These schemes are incorporated to promote equity and equality both, for garnering constitutionalism. Yet, notably, the constitution was passed amidst intense polarization in the Nepali society. The Madheshi leaders protesting against the constitution had enjoyed vital governmental positions. This shows their dishonesty and power greed. Roscoe Pound, who propounded the theory of social engineering, believed that law must be stable, yet it cannot stand still. In Keshvanand Bharati v the State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court of India held that the word ‘amend’ implied that “while any piecemeal change may be made, the old constitution cannot be totally destroyed or so radically changed as to lose its identity; the basic features cannot be amended.” The court further held that the original constitution can be amended, subject to basic features, but cannot be repealed. In fact, no rule can provide for every possible situation. Amendments, not repealing of laws, could be an answer to probable issues. From fundamental rights to federal principles, these provisions clarify that Nepal’s constitution is one of the progressive documents. The charter aims to promote equality, fraternity, liberty and equity. This message needs to be communicated across the country. Communicating with the Charter Nelson Mandela has said, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.” It’s high time that the government distributed free copies of the constitution in different regional and local languages. Such an attempt would be a milestone in the healthy development of mother tongues. For instance, the government could translate the constitution in Maithili and Bhojpuri languages for the Madhesh province. If the constitution is communicated in regional languages, it would help the people understand the constitutional provisions in the language they understand. It’s worth remembering that the Madheshi activists, who had protested against the constitution and later bagged vital government positions under the same constitutional mandates, had “interpreted” the constitutional provisions in Maithili and Bhojpuri languages to seek solidarity of the people in their protest against the statute. Fundamental duty of citizens Our constitution under Article 48 lays down fundamental duties on every citizen to abide by the constitution and the prevailing laws of the land. Under this mandate, the government as well as private persons have to compose their functions in accordance with the procedure established by the constitution. This concept of fundamental duty is not a noble one. The fundamental duties were inserted in the Indian constitution through 42nd amendment in 1976, upon the recommendation of the Swarna Singh Committee. Article 51A of the Indian charter embodies 11 duties, including the duty to abide by the constitution and to protect as well as improve the natural environment. The 11th duty—duty of parents to educate their children—was inserted through 86th amendment of 2002. The Constitution of China also bears testimony of the fundamental duties in various Articles under the chapter of Fundamental Rights and Duties’, including, the duty of the citizens of the People’s Republic of China to work (Art 42); rights and duty to receive education (Art 46); duty to safeguard national unity (Art 52); and duty to pay tax (Art 56). Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) concentrates on rights of every person by virtue of being human being, Article 29 says that the corollary of the rights is duties. The provision (i.e., Art 29) talks about the duty towards the community. Implementation matters Nepal’s constitution is a bag of progressive provisions. However, the problem lies in implementation of the provisions. HLA Hart, a jurist of the analytical school of jurisprudence, says: enactment of law is one thing, while implementation is the other. Jeremy Bentham believed that the role of law should be to increase happiness and decrease pain, pointing: Law should ensure maximum happiness for the maximum number. This cannot happen unless the constitution is implemented in its letter and spirit. For instance, the theory of polluter pays principle (PPP), recognized under Article 30 of the constitution, would remain on paper unless the state succeeds to guarantee a breath of fresh air to all and inflict a penalty against the polluters. Also, the concept of equity and equality would remain limited to black letters of law unless the mechanisms of positive and protections discriminations are duly implemented. Everything is within the constitution and that too in the codified form. The only thing left is to implement it. We, the people of Nepal, deserve to have employment, proper healthcare at affordable cost, quality education, and quality foodstuffs as a matter of right, because our constitution guarantees that. Mere enactment of cosmetic laws would not give a desired result unless they are implemented. Leaders should live with promises The Pandora of promises should be cherished by the newly-formed government. The political parties had shown ambitious plans and policies for the people. Interestingly, their lofty plans were in recognition of the constitution. It’s high time for the government to implement the constitution in its letter and spirit, for the Himalayan Republic deserves development, peace and prosperity. No country could ever grow with a tendency of sidelining the constitutional mandates. After all, our constitution is a living document promoting social transformation. Now, it’s time to live with it.

Arbitration and mediation as a legal means of dispute resolution was in practice in Nepal much before the country welcomed democracy and a codified judicial system. During the Panchayat era, for example, the Panchayat was an informal tribunal of five gentlemen chosen from among the electorate of a village to settle disputes between local people and deliver justice. However, it was subordinate to the court of law. In the Licchavi period, the Panchali, also called Pancha Sabha, had the power to issue judgments on local disputes. The concept of arbitration in its modern sense was first found in government contracts. Currently, we have a plethora of laws promoting amicable settlement of disputes. Cases of civil nature can be mediated at any stage even if they have entered the court of law. Mediation can happen before evidence collection, after evidence collection or even during the implementation of judgements. If the Bench has reasons to believe that the dispute can be resolved through mediation, the judge can pass an order, directing the parties to sit for mediation before the mediation center of the concerned District Court or the High Court. Court procedure The Mediation Act, 2068 BS (2011) and its rules framed in 2070 BS (2013) provide for the procedure of mediation to settle a dispute in a speedy and simple manner. Section 3 of this Act provisions that if parties intend to settle a case pending in the court through mediation, the adjudicating authority may pass an order to refer it to a mediation center for reaching a compromise. After passing the order, the court officials engaged in providing dates of appearances to the parties would request the parties to appear before the mediation center on a specified date. Then, the parties themselves, not their legal representatives, would (in person) have to appear before the center on a specified date to participate in a discussion for reaching a negotiated settlement. Before entering the mediation process, the parties must choose a mediator from a roster of mediators maintained at the District Court. After the selection of a mediator, the mediation process formally begins. Discussions can happen in phases—up to three phases. In case of failure on the part of the mediator to facilitate a unanimous decision despite rounds of talks between the parties, the center must furnish a report announcing the termination of the mediation process. Afterwards, the court itself should hear the case under normal proceedings. The District Court Regulations, 2075 empowers the District Court Registrar to maintain a roster of mediators. Any individual from the legal fraternity, teaching, social service or other sector may be enlisted as a mediator, provided that the person has received training on mediation and has not been convicted under offenses involving moral turpitude. Rule 52 of the regulations has given the judges the authority to initiate a case for mediation by passing an order to that effect. In order to resolve disputes through mediation, judges may give the parties concerned up to three months of cooling period for reaching an amicable settlement. Rule 53 of the regulations prescribes that the Registrar of the District Court should facilitate the selection of the mediator on the basis of consensus among the parties, whereas Rule 57 prescribes procedures for mediation. If a party or parties fail to appear before the mediation center on a stipulated date, and the mediation process cannot proceed as a result, officials of the center should furnish a report to the court, stating that the mediation could not proceed. However, if the parties reach an amicable settlement, the mediator should prepare a compromise document by duly stating the details of adjustment. Later, the compromise document is presented before the bench and the presiding judge approves the document through consent of the disputants in writing along with their signatures. This document is also a form of court verdict, which is duly archived in court case file. Both High Court and Supreme Court Regulations recognise mediation as an agreeable means for dispute resolution and the arrangements are at par with District Court Regulations. Mediation under major laws   The National Civil Code, 2017, a general substantive law in Nepal, has provisions for mediation in civil matters. Take divorce, for example. Section 97 of the Code, 2017 provides that if a husband or wife has filed a petition for divorce in district court, the court must pass an order, directing the parties to sit for mediation. If the court fails to make conciliation between husband and wife through counseling, it must issue a divorce order within a year of the petition. There can be a compromise deed for divorce, of course. Under Section 193, the Civil Procedure Code stipulates that if a case is sub-judice and the parties wish to reach a compromise at any stage, they may make a joint petition, mentioning the bases for the resolution of the case. Section 194 clarifies that disputes may be settled through mediation. However, there are cases that cannot be mediated. Per Section 195, there can be no mediation in cases that have the government of Nepal as a plaintiff. It states that cases related to public, government or community property shall not be settled through compromise or mediation. However, for protecting the property of the government, mediation can be undertaken. Cases like dishonor of cheque, forgery, criminal trespass and looting mentioned under Schedule 4 of National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017 can be mediated. In addition to this, cases of cheating (which is a matter of Schedule-1 of the National Criminal Procedure Code) instituted by an individual can be mediated. But cases related to looting or misappropriation of government property cannot be mediated. In cases concerning misappropriation of state properties, the government should initiate legal action. Cases of contempt of court and public interest litigations cannot be resolved through mediation. Mediation saves money     Most importantly, the laws in Nepal provide financial benefits to the litigants if they manage to settle disputes on their own. If the parties reach a compromise before a court of law passes orders for evidence collection, then the disputants can get away by bearing only 25 percent of court fees. But if compromise is reached after evidence collection, the parties have to foot 50 percent of the fees. So, dispute settlement through compromise is a better option financially as well. Gray areas Mediators from law, social service or teaching background can help settle disputes. Still, the law is silent on the expertise of mediators, allowing the latter to mediate in civil as well as criminal matters without taking their areas of expertise and interest into consideration. There is a practice of maintaining a single roster of mediators instead of keeping separate rosters of mediators for civil, matrimonial matters, or criminal cases. Mediation will be more effective if mediators choose specific areas of specialization and limit themselves to those areas. In the state’s interest Yet, Nepal’s law appears to be progressive for a number of reasons. Firstly, the laws intend to promote amicable settlements through compromise. Second, it gives a strong and clear message that dispute resolution through compromise is better than the disposal of cases through court proceedings. Moreover, the deed of compromise is cost-effective, speedy and agreement ad idem. Also, alternate dispute resolution mechanism is in the interest of the state as it helps to end litigations (Interest rei publicae ui sit finis litium). It's high time to promote mediation, instead of recourse to court cases. The governments—federal, provincial and local bodies—need to invest in promoting mediation mechanisms. Such type of intervention is more needed in Madhesh as courts there are flooded with litigations. The author is a Judicial Officer at Dhanusha District Court, [email protected]