Submit your Article

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.

Five years after the deadly clashes in the Galwan Valley that severely strained ties, India and China now appear to be moving toward normalization of relations.

While the US President Donald Trump’s tariff war may have nudged the two Asian powers closer, the current thaw stems largely from sustained confidence-building measures and dialogue. For Kathmandu, cordial relations between India and China create a more favorable environment to engage constructively with both New Delhi and Beijing.

On both the Doklam and the Galwan clashes, Nepal consistently maintained that disputes should be resolved peacefully. Following the Galwan incident, Nepal stated: “In the context of recent developments in the Galwan Valley area between our friendly neighbors India and China, Nepal is confident that both the neighboring countries will resolve, in the spirit of good neighborliness, their mutual differences through peaceful means in favor of bilateral, regional and world peace and stability.”

Over the past year, multiple rounds of dialogue helped rebuild trust. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited India on Aug 18–19, where discussions included the sensitive border question. Earlier, in July, Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar traveled to Beijing.

India has long maintained that relations cannot return to normal unless border issues are addressed. In delegation-level talks, Jaishankar remarked: “Having seen a difficult period in our relationship, our two nations seek to move ahead. This requires a candid and constructive approach from both sides. Overall, it is our expectation that our discussions would contribute to building a stable, cooperative and forward-looking relationship between India and China, one that serves both our interests and addresses our concerns.”

On the global context, he added: “We seek a fair, balanced and multi-polar world order, including a multi-polar Asia. Reformed multilateralism is also the call of the day. In the current environment, there is clearly the imperative of maintaining and enhancing stability in the global economy as well.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, for his part, urged both sides to draw lessons from the past, cultivate a correct strategic outlook, and view each other as partners and opportunities rather than rivals or threats. He emphasized confidence-building, expanded cooperation and consolidating positive momentum. Pointing to the US, Wang warned that “unilateral bullying practices are on the rise, while free trade and the international order face severe challenges.”

This thaw in India-China ties comes at a time when New Delhi’s relations with Washington have soured after Trump imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, citing India’s continued imports of Russian oil. Meanwhile, China and the US have been locked in a trade and technology war since 2018.

According to Kathmandu-based geopolitical analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta, shifting global geopolitics has compelled both India and China to temporarily set aside differences. “Both countries now recognize each other as competing powers, not necessarily the binary rivals often portrayed in Western media,” he said. “The backdrop to these developments is important for countries like Nepal. For instance, the Trump administration’s tariff measures against India for its Russian oil imports came despite the fact that most major countries were doing the same, something that actually helped stabilize the global oil market, benefiting even Nepal.”

Bhatta added that India and China have long learned from each other, and countries in between stand to benefit if ties continue to improve. Closer relations could generate alternative ideas for development and global governance.

Still, he cautioned that states prioritize their own interests, especially in times of heightened geopolitics. “We too must focus on our own interests and prepare to navigate accordingly,” he said. “There’s an old saying: whether elephants fight or make love, it’s the grass that suffers. It may be old, but it remains relevant when external factors increasingly shape regional relations.”