Submit your Article

India and China have emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility in the border areas as a foundation for strengthening their overall bilateral relationship. A statement issued after the 24th round of the Special Representatives’ Dialogue on the Boundary Question said that the two countries agreed to establish an expert group under the working mechanism for consultation and coordination on border issues. This group will explore “early harvest” measures in boundary delimitation in the disputed areas.

They also agreed to form a working group to improve border management and maintain stability along the frontier. Both sides will use existing diplomatic and military mechanisms to carry forward the process of border management and discuss steps toward de-escalation, starting with principles and modalities.

These agreements underscore efforts to normalize relations that had been severely strained since the Galwan Valley clash in 2020. If the peace-building measures move forward as planned, India-China ties could see significant improvement, creating new dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region.

 India and China decided to reopen border trade through three designated trading points, Lipulekh Pass, Shipki La Pass, and Nathu La Pass.   

Issuing a press statement, a spokesperson at Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the constitution of Nepal has already incorporated Nepal’s official map, which clearly establishes that Limpuyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani, located to the east of the Mahakali River, are integral parts of Nepal. The Nepal government has objected to any activities in the area, reminding both countries that the Kalapani region is an integral part of Nepal.

Similarly, India has said that its position on the matter is consistent and clear.  Border trade between India and China through Lipulekh pass commenced in 1954 and has been going on for decades. This trade had been disrupted in recent years due to Covid and other developments, and both sides have now agreed to resume it, India said in a statement.  As regards territorial claims, our position remains that such claims are neither justified nor based on historical facts and evidence. Any unilateral artificial enlargement of territorial claims is untenable, the statement issued by India reads.

In 2015, during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to China, two sides had agreed to hold negotiation on augmenting the list of traded commodities, and expand border trade Nathu La, Qiangla/Lipu-Lekh Pass and Shipki La. At that time, Nepal had protested the India-China agreement sending a protest letter to both countries.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is visiting China after six years to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin. India and China also discussed a wide range of issues linked to the BRICS Summit. BRICS nations are considering the creation of a common currency, a proposal that has drawn criticism from US President Donald Trump. India and China agreed to support each other in hosting major diplomatic events: India will host the 2026 BRICS Summit, while China will host in 2027. This provides new opportunities for bilateral and regional engagement.

The two sides also agreed to resume direct flight connectivity between the Chinese mainland and India, suspended during the Covid-19 pandemic and not restarted due to strained ties. They will also finalize an updated air service agreement. The Kailash Manasarovar Yatra has already resumed, and beginning next year, the scale of Indian pilgrimages is expected to increase.

In addition, both sides pledged to take concrete measures to facilitate trade and investment flows, jointly maintain peace in the border areas through friendly consultations, and uphold multilateralism. They agreed to enhance coordination on major international and regional issues, maintain a rules-based multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core, and promote a multipolar world that safeguards the interests of developing countries, according to the statement.

After the Doklam crisis, Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping held two informal summits—the first in Wuhan in April 2018, and the second in Chennai in Oct 2019—which significantly helped improve ties. In 2018, China had proposed a “two plus one” model, under which India and China would consult or cooperate on development projects in South Asian countries. That idea, however, faded amid worsening bilateral ties.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi noted that since the beginning of this year, bilateral relations have moved onto a path of steady development and the boundary situation has continued to stabilize. He added that China attaches great importance to Prime Minister Modi’s visit to attend the SCO Tianjin Summit and looks forward to India’s active contribution to its success.

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

The number of Nepalis traveling abroad on visit visas has been increasing sharply in recent years. The number surged from 90,180 in 2021 to 271,305 in 2024. Although visit visas are intended for short visits, most of these individuals do not return back. They find work abroad and settle there—without ever going through the official labor migration process. According to the Department of Immigration, there has been a significant rise in the number of people who leave Nepal on visit visas for work purposes.

The trend grew after the Covid-19 pandemic, which left many in Nepal jobless. Small businesses shut down, and employment opportunities dried up. Since many find the process of getting a labor permit long and complicated, they opt for the quicker route by obtaining a visit visa.

According to the Department of Immigration, a growing number of women are also leaving the country on visit visas. The number of women traveling abroad on a visit visa increased from 13,040 in 2021 to 114,333 in 2024. Despite this surge, the number of people leaving the country with official labor permits has remained almost constant in recent years. Remittances flow, however, doubled over the period.  

In fiscal year 2015/16, 642,859 Nepali youth left the country with labor permits. That year, the country received Rs 665bn in remittances. In 2023/24, 741,000 Nepali youths officially left for foreign employment. Despite a small increase in the number of youths leaving the country during the period, remittances increased drastically to Rs 1,445bn in 2023/24. This is because remittances from undocumented workers or those on visit visas are also included in the national total, officials say.

Reforming the system

Speaking at a recent event, Minister for Labor, Employment and Social Security, Sharat Singh Bhandari, said the government was working on a new system to allow Nepalis who go abroad on visit visas to get labor approval from Nepali embassies in their host countries. Currently, this is possible in countries like UAE and Saudi Arabia, where workers can apply for labor permits through the embassy while already living there. The ministry believes this could reduce the difficulties and risks for workers who initially travel on visit visas.

“Out of about 500,000 people who enter the Nepali labor force each year, only 100,000 can be absorbed into domestic jobs,” Bhandari said. “The remaining 400,000 leave the country by various means. There is no way we can stop them here.” Ram Chandra Tiwari, director general of the Department of Immigration, believes many youths, who leave on visit visas, still send remittances home. However, their data is not separated in national records.  Over the past eight years, official labor migration numbers have barely changed. However, the overall departures have grown significantly.

Why official process is avoided

Stakeholders say there are six reasons why people are avoiding the official process to land them a job in foreign countries. First, the labor permit process is lengthy and cumbersome. Choosing a manpower agency, undergoing medical tests, attending orientation training, waiting for pre-approval and receiving the permit can take months. This is forcing many people to choose quicker alternatives.

Second, people feel working through agents is faster and easier. Agents promise to send people abroad within a week or two. Third is to bypass government bans. Nepal has banned labor migration to certain countries and jobs for safety reasons. Since demand for Nepali workers is high in these places, agents use visit visas as a “backdoor” route, especially for women seeking domestic jobs in Gulf nations.

Fourth is the high cost involved in labor migration. Recruitment agencies often charge higher-than-authorized fees. This makes legal migration expensive. Fifth is due to the growing trust in local agents. They convince people by saying things like, “I’ve sent many people before—nothing will happen”. This helps convince youths easily.

Sixth is the option to find jobs freely. Under formal labor contracts, workers are bound to a single employer. They cannot switch jobs even if they are unhappy with the job or salary. Some people believe they can travel on visit visas and find jobs on their own terms.

Rules being tightened

To address these issues, the Department of Immigration has begun tightening controls at Tribhuvan International Airport. As per a new policy currently under discussion: those caught with fake documents will be handed over to the police. Tiwari said anyone carrying suspicious documents will be arrested for investigation. “We are doing this after consulting with all stakeholders,” he said, referring to Nepal Police, Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal, the tourism ministry and the airline companies. He said the department will make a formal announcement of the new policy soon.

The department insists that it wants to prevent abuse of visit visas, not stop legitimate travelers. The new rule aims at targeting rackets that charge people hundreds of thousands of rupees to send them to Gulf countries on visit visas. These groups often include agents, middlemen, airline staff, and even some corrupt officials. At present, loopholes allow those with fake documents to slip through undetected. The new regulation intends to close that gap. Anyone with doubtful documents or suspicious behavior will be required to hand over six types of supporting documents at the airport. If they fail to comply, immigration officers will be empowered to involve the police for further investigation.

On Aug 18, WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala received Nepal’s instrument of acceptance of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies from Nepal’s WTO Ambassador Ram Prasad Subedi. Just three more acceptances are needed for the agreement to enter into force. 

DG Okonjo-Iweala said: “Only through collective action can we restore the health of our oceans—and curbing harmful fisheries subsidies is an important step to this end. I am deeply grateful to Nepal for its leadership as a landlocked least-developed country. With Nepal’s ratification, we are even closer to crossing the finish line in bringing the landmark Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies into force. Only three more acceptances to go!”

Ambassador Subedi said: “Nepal is very pleased to deposit its instrument of acceptance of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies today, reaffirming our commitment to a rules-based multilateral trading system. As a landlocked country, we nonetheless share with other WTO members a responsibility to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources. We believe that healthy marine ecosystems are vital for food security, environmental sustainability and the livelihoods of millions of people around the world.”

Formal acceptances from two-thirds of WTO members are required for the agreement to enter into force—representing 111 members. At the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) held in Geneva in June 2022, ministers adopted the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies through consensus, setting new, binding, multilateral rules to curb harmful fisheries subsidies. The agreement prohibits subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, for fishing overfished stocks, and for fishing on the unregulated high seas.

Ministers also recognized the needs of developing economies and least-developed countries (LDCs) by establishing a fund to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to help governments that have formally accepted the agreement to implement the new obligations.

In early June, the Fish Fund launched a Call for Proposals inviting developing economies and LDCs that have ratified the agreement to submit requests for project grants aimed at helping them implement the Agreement. Applications are due by Oct 9. 

WTO members also agreed at MC12 to continue negotiating on remaining fisheries subsidies issues with the aim of finding consensus on additional provisions to further strengthen the disciplines on fisheries subsidies.