Submit your Article

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

Nepal is days away from electing a new House of Representatives on March 5. This is an election born out of one of the most dramatic political upheavals the country has witnessed in recent time. The GenZ protests of Sept 8–9, shook the foundations of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML-led coalition government, forced the dissolution of Parliament, and propelled former Chief Justice Sushila Karki into the role of interim Prime Minister. In many ways, this election carries the weight of a nation’s renewed hope to bring the constitutional processes on track. 

And yet, something is quietly poisoning that hope—not a foreign enemy, not a natural disaster, but something far more insidious: a flood of propaganda that is dividing Nepalese society in ways that may take years to repair.

This is not the first election Nepal has held in the wake of political transformation. But it may be the first where the election campaign itself has become more dangerous than the political crisis that preceded it. Across social media feeds, public rallies, and private conversations, Nepali citizens and political cadres are not debating policy, rather they are choosing sides in a war of narratives. And the longer this goes on unchecked, the harder it will be to put the country back together once the votes are counted.

A campaign built on slogans

Walk through the current election campaign landscape and one phrase captures the spirit of it all: ‘Desh banaune ra desh jalaune’—those who will build the country and those who will burn it. It sounds dramatic. It is meant to. And therein lies the problem. Nearly every major political force, either old or new, has reduced the complexity of Nepal’s governance challenges into a simple binary: us versus them, nationalists versus traitors, reformers versus the corrupt establishment. Nepali Congress, reinvigorated under Gagan Thapa following a special party convention, presents itself as a fresh political alternative. 

The newly formed Nepali Communist Party (NCP), which brought together nearly a dozen leftist factions after the September protests, also claims to represent a new dawn. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), with Balen Shah now formally in its ranks and declared as their prime ministerial candidate, pitches itself as the true outsider ready to dismantle the old order. Meanwhile, CPN (UML) under KP Sharma Oli, who led the government during the protests that triggered this election, is somehow also claiming the nationalist high ground.

The problem is not that parties are presenting themselves favorably. Every political party in every democracy does that. The problem is that these competing narratives have little to do with actual governance proposals. Manifestoes promise extraordinary things: CPN (UML) pledges one million youth jobs in five years. RSP commits to per capita income crossing $3,000 USD. Others promise to slash corruption overnight and send corrupt leaders to jail, without specifying a single credible legal mechanism for doing so. These are not policy platforms. They are propaganda dressed in the language of policy.

Old wounds reopened, new fractures created

Perhaps the most telling sign of how propaganda-driven this election campaign has become is the return of debates that most people assumed were settled by the 2015 Constitution. The monarchy question, which was resolved when Nepal became a federal democratic republic, is somehow back on the table. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has made monarchy restoration a central demand, positioning itself as the only truly nationalist force, implying that everyone else is, to varying degrees, compromised by foreign interests and imposing foreign agenda.

The “who is a nationalist” debate has spread like wildfire. CPN (UML), despite bearing significant political responsibility for what happened during the Sept 2025 protests, now presents itself as a bulwark against foreign interference. RSP’s candidate Sobita Gautam and others were labeled “American agents” on social media—a claim later fact-checked and found to be based on a deliberately misleading photograph. Manipulated AI-generated images of Gagan Thapa being chased by crowds were widely circulated before being debunked. According to Nepal Fact Check, such incidents are not isolated—they reflect a systematic effort to use digital tools to shape perception rather than inform it.

A recent survey by the Center for Media Research Nepal found that over 95 percent of online users in Nepal had encountered false information at some point. With 73 percent of Nepalis now using smartphones and over 37 percent having internet access according to the 2021 National Census, the infrastructure for mass misinformation has never been more complete.

Beyond the monarchy-versus-federalism divide, the Sept 8–9 protests themselves have become a battleground of competing narratives. Sept 8, when security forces killed protesters in the streets, is remembered by some as a day of martyrdom and used by RPP as evidence of state brutality under the then-ruling coalition. Sept 9, when mobs destroyed public and private property, is the image CPN (UML) prefers to amplify, using it to question the legitimacy of the entire protest movement—while staying conspicuously silent about the bloodshed the day before. Nepali Congress and the Nepali Communist Party have taken a more measured position, acknowledging the protests and calling for an independent investigation into both days. But measured voices struggle to compete in an environment where outrage is the currency of engagement.

The invisible global agenda

One of the quieter failures of this election campaign is the near-complete absence of serious debate on the issues that will most shape Nepal’s future over the next decade. Climate change, which threatens Nepal’s glaciers and water security. The restructuring of the global economy, which directly affects remittances—currently surging by over 32 percent and sustaining a foreign reserve of $22.47bn, but fragile nonetheless. 

Youth unemployment and economic inequalities, which were the original fuel behind the GenZ protests. These are the issues that demand substantive policy discussion. Instead, what voters are getting feels less like a parliamentary election and more like a local government campaign—personal, parochial, and driven by personality over platform.

Meanwhile, some leaders, including deposed King Gyanendra, have stated that Nepal’s very existence as a sovereign nation is in question, that the country is ‘close to a major accident’. These are extraordinarily alarming things to say, and they are being said without a shred of evidence. When leaders speak this way without backing, they are not sounding alarm bells, rather they are manufacturing fear. And manufactured fear is one of the oldest and most effective propaganda tools known to politics.

What happens the morning after

When the results come in the following week of March 5, one side will have won and several will have lost. But the deeper question is: what kind of country will Nepal be when the campaign posters come down?

Polarization of the kind being manufactured right now does not disappear after election day. It settles into communities, strains friendships, fractures families, and hardens into the kind of social division that festers for years. None of the current political forces, neither the so-called new ones nor the established ones, seem interested in stepping back from the propaganda machine. Because, simply put, it works. At least in the short term.

This is precisely why the responsibility now falls on those who stand outside the electoral arena: civil society, independent media, academic institutions, and think tanks. Nepal urgently needs serious investment in propaganda fact-checking, not as a reactive exercise after falsehoods have gone viral, but as a proactive, institutionalized function embedded in the election cycle. Organizations like Nepal Fact Check are doing valuable work, but they cannot carry this alone. Tech platforms operating in Nepal, the Election Commission of Nepal, and policy bodies need to come together to build the infrastructure like technical tools, regulatory guidelines, and public literacy programs that can hold propaganda accountable in real time.

There is also a deeper structural issue. Many of the propaganda narratives that have taken hold during this election campaign—about the September protests, about foreign interference, about the monarchy, about federalism—thrive precisely because there has been no credible, independent, evidence-based account of these events that the public can trust. When authoritative information is absent, rumor and spin fill the vacuum. 

Nepal needs white papers from concerned authorities, investigative reporting from independent media, policy briefs from research institutions, and reels and TikTok videos from ethical content creators that can put facts on the table with enough credibility and reach to shift the public conversation. The question, honestly, is whether Nepal has yet built the institutional capacity to do this. If not, that capacity needs to become a priority after this election, regardless of who wins.

A paradigm shift Nepal cannot afford to delay

Nepal has come a long way from a decade-long armed conflict to a constitutional republic with federal democratic governance. That journey was not easy, and it was not free. Thousands of lives and decades of struggle went into building the political framework that now exists. To watch that framework hollowed out by propaganda, not by armed insurgents, but by politicians with microphones and social media accounts, should concern every Nepali citizen deeply.

The March 5 election will happen. A government will be formed. But the work of preventing propaganda from becoming the permanent language of Nepali politics must begin the moment the voting ends. Civil society must speak louder. Journalists must hold the line. Citizens must demand more from their leaders than clever slogans and manufactured fear. Because a country that chooses its leaders based on who tells the most convincing lies is not choosing its future—it is surrendering it.

The author currently serves as a Visiting Research Fellow at Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, USA. The author writes on political affairs, peace, governance, and social policy in Nepal

Nepal has been passing through a volatile political phase following the violent protests of Sept 9, during which key state installations—including the Parliament building, Singha Durbar, and the President’s Office—were set on fire. The unrest created a serious political and constitutional vacuum, raising concerns about state stability and security. In the aftermath, the role of the Nepali Army (NA) came under intense public scrutiny.

Many members of the public and political leaders questioned why the NA failed to protect vital government institutions such as Singhadurbar. The Army, however, defended its actions, arguing that its top priority was to prevent human casualties rather than protect physical infrastructure. According to senior NA officials, opening fire on protesters on September 9 could have triggered even more severe violence the following day. They maintain that if more lives had been lost, the situation might have spiraled beyond control of NA. This debate is likely to continue in the days ahead.

Despite the criticism, the Army’s conduct during and after the protests has been widely regarded as measured and responsible. Most notably, in the political vacuum that emerged after the unrest, the NA did not attempt to assume power. Instead, it facilitated the restoration of civilian rule. Following initial engagement with protest groups to help restore normalcy, the Army worked closely with President Ramchandra Paudel and major political parties to expedite the formation of a new government.

Between Sept 9 and 12, the NA coordinated with the President and senior leaders from major parties to accelerate the government formation process. The Army reportedly urged political actors to quickly establish a new administration, given the sensitive and volatile environment. By doing so, it sent a clear message that it had no political ambitions and remained committed to its professional and apolitical role.

A military takeover—even a temporary one until elections could be held—might have further complicated the crisis and jeopardized Nepal’s 2015 Constitution. Senior leaders such as Madhav Kumar Nepal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal publicly acknowledged the Army’s constructive role in restoring stability. The US Embassy in Nepal also praised President Paudel and Chief of the Army Staff Ashok Raj Sigdel for ensuring a smooth transition back to civilian governance.

Following the formation of the Karki-led government and the announcement of elections, the Army continued to emphasize that elections were the only viable path out of the crisis. On this issue, the NA, President Paudel, and Prime Minister Sushila Karki appeared aligned. The Army maintained that any postponement of elections could trigger another round of political instability and constitutional uncertainty. This firm position helped bring political parties together in support of the electoral process.

In preparation for the March 5 elections, the Nepal Army played a proactive role in strengthening security arrangements. Although constitutional questions sometimes arise regarding the mobilization of the Army for election security, the NA fully cooperated with the government. Given concerns about declining morale within the Nepal Police, there had been doubts about whether adequate security could be ensured. In response, the Army expedited logistical and operational preparations within a limited timeframe.

To date, no major incidents of election-related violence have been reported. The Army has continued patrol operations to maintain a secure environment. Just weeks ago, top political leaders had expressed concerns about their ability to campaign safely. However, most candidates are now actively engaged in electioneering without significant security complaints, aside from a few minor incidents.

The NA has provided security for elections since the restoration of democracy. For the March 5 polls, it deployed over 80,000 personnel. Traditionally, the Army is stationed in the outer security ring of polling centers, while police and local security forces manage the inner perimeter. However, in coordination with local authorities, the NA can assume responsibility for inner-circle security when threat levels are high.

Compared to previous elections, the Army’s role in this process has been more extensive and intensive, largely due to the extraordinary political circumstances. These elections are not taking place under normal conditions; they are viewed as a crucial step toward restoring constitutional order and political stability. By committing itself to ensuring free, fair, and timely elections, the Nepal Army has positioned the electoral process as central to resolving the ongoing crisis and putting the constitution back on track.

As the March 5 elections draw closer, debates and curiosity about the possible outcomes are intensifying. This election for the House of Representatives (HoR) is expected to be markedly different from previous ones due to several factors.

First, the elections are taking place against the backdrop of the Sept 8–9 GenZ movement, which toppled the powerful Nepali Congress-UML government. The main agenda of the movement was radical reform in key societal institutions, primarily targeting the state mechanism and political parties.

Second, for the first time in recent elections, youth engagement has been unusually high. Among around one million new voters, more than 80 percent are first-time voters, signaling a major shift in electoral dynamics.

Third, the anti-incumbency sentiment, which was relatively weak in the 2017 and 2022 elections, has now reached its peak, creating uncertainty for established parties.

Fourth, the emergence of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) adds another layer of unpredictability. From securing just 20 seats in the 2022 elections, the party—now allied with former Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Sah—has gained significant momentum, positioning itself as a serious contender.

Fifth, governance and reform have emerged as central electoral issues. In previous elections, these topics were not prime concerns. This time, however, they are expected to heavily influence voter decisions.

Sixth, the "new versus old" debate has intensified, with a strong narrative advocating that fresh leadership should be given the opportunity to implement a transformative agenda.

Seventh, geopolitics has become a prominent electoral issue, particularly highlighted by CPN-UML. Unlike other parties that focus on domestic issues, UML has emphasized external threats, suggesting that the September protests were backed by foreign forces aiming to destabilize Nepal. The party’s campaign materials raise concerns about the role of India and other foreign powers, warning that the victory of new political forces could make Nepal geopolitically vulnerable.

Given this new environment, predicting the election outcome is extremely difficult. There are multiple reasons for this uncertainty.

In the 2017 and 2022 elections, electoral alliances played a decisive role. In 2017, the pre-poll alliance between CPN-UML and the Maoist party led to their sweeping victory, while the Nepali Congress suffered a humiliating defeat. 

In 2022, the alliance between Nepali Congress and the Maoists was expected to favor NC, but UML managed to secure 30 percent of the proportional representation vote, slightly edging out NC at 29 percent. Meanwhile, RSP emerged as a “dark horse,” securing 20 seats, particularly attracting urban voters. This time, however, parties are contesting largely without alliances, fielding candidates across almost all 165 constituencies.

 The rise of RSP is forcing traditional parties to recalibrate their strategies. Speeches from top leaders indicate that major parties are targeting RSP and Balendra Sah, rather than criticizing each other—a clear sign of the pressure RSP is creating. While RSP is likely to make gains, its exact vote share remains uncertain, which could further weaken NC, UML, and Maoist positions.

Intra-party dynamics among the major parties also differ from previous elections. In the past, despite occasional dissatisfaction over candidate distribution, parties largely remained united. This time, the situation is more complex. 

In Nepali Congress, the election of Gagan Kumar Thapa as party president during the special general convention has energized the party, signaling alignment with GenZ aspirations. However, Sher Bahadur Deuba’s ongoing legal battles and the passive stance of his supporters may constrain the party’s overall performance. Old guards at both central and local levels are not fully backing the new candidates, creating a potential vertical split. In this context, it is unclear whether NC will hold its ground or continue to weaken.

Within UML, the intra-party rift is less visible but still impactful. Party Chairman KP Sharma Oli’s reputation after the GenZ protests, particularly regarding accountability for the deaths of 19 protesters, has hurt the party’s image. Senior leaders are also displeased with Oli’s ticket distribution, which barred dissenting voices from contesting. UML has a strong and active organizational network among major parties, but it remains uncertain whether the party can repair its image following the Gen Z protests.

For the Nepali Communist Party (NCP) led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, predicting outcomes is equally challenging. While Dahal is likely to win in Rukum East, the fate of other senior leaders is uncertain. Historically, Maoists have oscillated between dominance (2008) and marginalization (2013), often relying on alliances to bolster their performance. In 2017 and 2022, the party secured third position in alliance with UML and Congress respectively, positioning itself as a king-maker. There has not been an independent test of the party's strength since the 2013 elections because it formed alliances with other parties in the subsequent two elections, making it very difficult to predict the party's current standing.

Finally, RSP continues to pose unpredictability. Although there appears to be a wave in their favor, the party lacks the organizational strength of NC, UML, and Maoists at the grassroots level. District-level  leaders leaving the party further complicates predictions.  While Balendra Shah's entry into the RSP has generated momentum, the effect of Rabi Lamichhane's legal cases on voter behavior is still uncertain. While RSP is expected to gain significantly in proportional representation, its performance in first-past-the-post contests remains uncertain. 

Other political forces influencing all major parties include the Madhes-based parties, as well as the parties led by Harka Sampang and Kul Man Ghising, each of which plays a significant role in shaping voter sentiment. 

In conclusion, the March 5 election is shaping up to be highly unpredictable due to youth engagement, anti-incumbency sentiment, the rise of RSP, intra-party dynamics, and new electoral agendas. Analysts and voters alike are facing a complex and fluid political landscape, making any prediction a formidable challenge.