Submit your Article

The Supreme Court on July 16  introduced its fifth strategic plan of the judiciary. This management instrument aims to guide the planning process toward a shared plan based on a sound analysis of the functioning of the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts for the next five years. Initially launched 20 years ago, these plans derive from a Situation Analysis that forms the foundation for defining the court’s vision, mission, values, goals and strategies, aligned with its mandates and functions. 

Judicial administration

The plan aims to achieve a good deal of objectives, including that of speedy and quality justice delivery; access to justice to all; protection and promotion of judicial good governance; strengthening effective court management and to enhance public faith toward the judiciary. Under chapter four, the plan prescribes mission, vision and fundamental values to be associated with the judiciary and its judicial functions that ultimately aim to ensure justice for all. The plan reiterates the judiciary's mission to ensure fair and impartial justice. There appears an explicit recognition of more than a dozen judicial values, including that of allegiance to the Constitution, independence, representation and inclusiveness, and participation and coordination, for accelerating the cause of fairness and impartial justice delivery system. The current plan borrows the mission, vision and values from yesteryear’s plan. The plan prioritizes prompt adjudication; judicial good governance and enhancement of public trust and faith toward judiciary; robust use of information technology (IT) and adequate availability of human resources and proper arrangement of infrastructures to digitalize the entire judicial administration process.

Goals and strategies

The plan hosts as many as 29 strategic objectives. It categorizes five major goals with their separate strategic objectives. It recognizes that the goal of prompt and qualitative adjudication cannot be achieved unless the courts succeed in adopting strategic objectives to adjudicate the cases on time.   In order to quicken the pulse of the speedy justice delivery system, there has to be compliance with effective measures to dispose of the cases; special arrangements for the courts with caseloads; and promotion of mediation and arbitration mechanisms to resolve the disputes between the parties. Also, it underscores the need for adopting measures to write judgments within the stipulated time-frame and utilizing optimum use of IT in court procedures.

Secondly, the victim-friendly judicial system; service-seeker friendly court atmosphere; strengthening of effective legal aid; and gender-friendly and inclusive judicial system could work as catalysts to enhance access to justice to all.  Thirdly, the plan aims to expedite judicial good governance and public faith toward judiciary. To achieve this goal, it suggests strategies, including that of robust monitoring and inspection to ensure the adherence of established judicial norms in the entire judicial department. Fourthly, the plan aims to ensure a sustainable and result-oriented use of IT in the judiciary. 

To achieve this goal, it suggests strategic objectives, which include: Strengthening of human resource management (HRM); improving physical infrastructure; providing adequate number of vehicles, computers and among other equipment; ensuring availability of adequate budget; ensuring effective implementation of the plan to ensure the overall development of the judiciary.

Implementing a new system

The Supreme Court has introduced a Differentiated Case Management (DCM) system in district courts from 16 July 2020 and from 17 Aug 2020 at high courts. This case management system differentiates the cases into three major path groups, viz., simple, general and special paths. The cases under the simple group have to be dispensed within six months; the cases under the general group have to be adjudicated within 12 months and the cases under the special group have to be finalized within 18 months from the date of their registration. The plan directs the Supreme Court to adopt all necessary measures to dispense the cases, which are sub-judice for five years or more, by 15 June-16 July 2026. The apex court has to dispose of the cases pending for more than three years by 16 July 2028.

The cases, where jail sentence for a term of 20 years or more, or life imprisonment have been awarded to the defendant, needs to be presented before the court of appeal, as per the mandate of section 10, Justice Administration Act, 2016 and Section 145, National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017 for the confirmation. And those cases produced before the apex court have to be adjudicated within nine months from the date of their registration. The appeal cases, where the defendant is in custody at the verdict of the trial court or high court, ought to be disposed of by the apex court within two years. In addition, the plan directs the high courts and trial courts to dispose of the cases as per the mandate of the DCM.

The plan directs the courts to refer, at least, 50 percent of the civil matters and among other private prosecution cases, which could be adjudged by way of arbitration and mediation, into the mediation process. Also, it directs the courts to ensure that at least half of the cases so referred in mediation be disposed of by way of alternate dispute resolution (ADR). As the prevailing Civil and Criminal Procedures Codes both direct the courts to ensure the availability of the copies of the judgments within 21 working days (from the date of the pronouncement of the said judgment); the plan directs the courts to adopt all necessary measures to give effect to these legal mandates. The plan directs the courts to execute their final verdicts (civil and criminal, both,) within six months. In case of public interest litigation (PIL) and other writ petitions, the court verdicts’ ought to be implemented within the stipulated time-frame so directed by the court itself; or in case of otherwise, within a year from the date of pronouncement of the final order.

To ensure effective implementation of the automation system, the plan directs the courts to adopt all necessary infrastructural and human resource measures to make certain that the cases are ‘cause listed’ or dates (Tarikh) are given to the parties without any human intervention. Basically, this automation system is in the nature of the lottery system, which bars the chief judges of the courts to assign the cases to respective benches. Further, it limits the role of the office chiefs or any other officials in either bench formation for particular cases or in giving dates to the parties.

Necessary measures

The plan recognizes a fact that the ultimate goal it aims to achieve would not be realized in letter and spirit unless there is availability of adequate number of employees; proper infrastructure; adequate budget; and capacity building training to the staff deployed at the courts with a flood of litigation. Also, the plan aims to ensure the robust use of apps, technologies and AI tools to expedite a smoother judicial administration process across the country. Moreover, the plan envisages that if its strategies are implemented, in letter and spirit, the Supreme Court would not have backlogged cases of two or more years. The plan envisages that this will require an estimated budget of Rs 26.227bn to accomplish the entire goals and strategies the fifth plan aims to achieve.

Without proper budget allocation, reform of existing laws and availability of adequate resources, the plan may not succeed. There ought to be compliance of strategic measures, including that of expediting dialogues and discourses with the concerned government authorities so as to allocate proper budget and to reform existing laws. The plan promises to make the justice delivery system more efficient by institutionalizing a set of values. These values will shape the judiciary’s external and internal behaviors, promoting judicial good governance, technology-friendly court procedures, impartial adjudication and inclusiveness and participatory court administration. The judiciary may not be able to achieve its cherished goals unless governments and other concerned authorities stand together and strive for these goals and strategies in a true and material sense.  

The authors are judicial officers at the Rajbiraj high court

Last January, we conducted an interaction in Chitwan with agriculture officers from local bodies in the district and organic farmers. During the discussion, an officer from Bharatpur municipality showed the list of farmers, who had written to the municipal office seeking organic fertilizers at subsidized rates. She also brought a list of farmers, who had received subsidies from the Agriculture Development Office (ADO). Some farmers had even approached both the bodies asking for subsidized fertilizers. She said, “I am going to remove the names of the farmers, who have already received a subsidy from another source.” 

In response, an organic farmer stood up and said, “Yes, it is right, we received a subsidy from the ADO, but the amount of manure we got is too little compared to our fields. We can get as much subsidized chemical fertilizers as we need. Then, what is wrong with getting subsidies for organic fertilizers as per our need? We need fertilizer for use, not for sale.” 

The officer explained that the municipality has a policy against double subsidies. The disappointment on the farmer’s face was evident. This situation was of the year when the government ensured to facilitate and provide the vermi-compost and organic fertilizers within the community, and to offer subsidies to organic farmers based on their production.  

Discrimination 

This situation highlights broader issues. All tiers of government promote similar kinds of discriminatory practices year after year. In the preceding fiscal year, half of the budget in the agriculture sector has gone toward subsidizing chemical fertilizers, whereas the budget for the promotion of organic agriculture is minimal—less than one percent—though the government’s policies and programs vow to promote organic farming to minimize soil acidity and increase productivity.

Every year, plans and policies mention equal subsidies for organic fertilizer as chemical fertilizer, but this disappears in the budget. In the last fiscal year, the government allocated Rs 1bn for building an organic fertilizer factory, but in the end, the entire budget got transferred to other topics. The Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) aims to increase soil carbon to four percent by the end of 2035. The 16th periodic plan aims to increase soil carbon to 2.6 percent by the end of 2029. However, organic farmers, who are increasing their soil carbon levels and conserving soil for the future, are disappointed with the government's subsidy policy. Government set the moisture limit for different organic manures and demand for the vat bill for subsidy. Due to which farmers aren’t able to get subsidies on their own to produce organic manure. Quite impractical and awful, isn’t it? 

No marketing plans 

The marketing of organic produce is also not easy. Last year, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chitwan, organized a Chitwan Mahotsav to promote tourism and trade in local products. The District Organic Federation, Chitwan had a stall of organic and indigenous products. Rajkumar Tamang, one of the leading certified organic farmers from Chitwan, brought a good harvest of cassava for display and sale. Every time, he had to explain that he didn’t use chemicals to get a good harvest. Even certified organic producers need to explain in detail how to sell their products as organic. “We save the environment; we save human health. In return, we have to explain every time that we never use chemicals. At the same time, agrovets can easily sell poison by calling it medicine, and the vendor can sell products brought from across the border as organic products without hesitation,” one of the leading organic farmers, Chandra Prasad Adhikari, lamented.

The National Agriculture Policy, 2061, mentions the promotion of organic farming and ensures the involvement of local bodies in food quality determination and certification. However, the certification process is still centralized, lengthy and costly. The Ministry of Agriculture published the guidelines for the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) certification, but these are still far from the reach of smallholders and marginalized farmers in Nepal without government initiation and subsidy. The government does not have any separate plan for the marketing of organic products. Neither the federal nor provincial nor local governments facilitate the development of organic marketplaces, resulting in organic products being sold alongside chemical products without identity. 

Organic products are not as visibly attractive as chemically-treated products, which leads consumers to avoid purchasing them despite their taste and health benefits. The increasing cases of non-communicable diseases are largely due to harmful food products and poor eating habits. Organic produce offers non-toxic food and original taste, but these products often do not receive recognition in many places because of their lack of visual appeal.

Burden of research

For the current fiscal (2024/25), the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), an autonomous research body dedicated to Nepali agriculture, received only six percent of the agricultural budget. Of this modest share, one percent is used for capital expenditure, with the remainder meant for carrying on with the current operation. Research on regenerative, natural and organic farming has never been the priority of NARC as data show. For example, a negligible amount (0.34 percent) of NARC’s budget is allocated for research, in the topic of ‘forest and environmental conservation’. Agricultural educational institutions also give emphasis to chemicals-based farming practices and encourage students to focus their research in this direction. As a result, all too often, farmers have no option but to conduct research independently, which raises their production costs and sometimes results in crop failures.

Last year, Mahendra Poudel, one of the leading organic farmers from Kalika municipality in Chitwan, and his friends planned to do organic farming on two hectares of previously inorganic land. They planted bananas from tissue culture in most of the area, banana bulbs in some areas and maize in the remaining parcels. The tissue-cultured bananas and maize failed due to a prolonged winter drought. Poudel and his team visited all of the government and research institutions in search of seeds and seedlings, but no one advised them against planting tissue-cultured bananas and maize in the predicted unfavorable conditions. The banana bulbs were successful. This year, the group planted banana bulbs and sunflowers, ensuring the availability of water. They are now aware of what to plant and what not to. However, they lost one harvest due to a lack of research and extension services from the government.

Modernization and increasing productivity in agriculture are some of the main aims of the government’s plans and policies. However, the descriptions and implementations of modernization and increasing productivity do not address regenerative and organic agriculture. All investment, research, and technology (whether developed or imported) are targeted at chemicals-based farming. As a result, organic farmers are unable to access appropriate seeds, technology, manure and insights from previous cultivation experiences. Organic producers must conduct trial-and-error research on their own, which increases the risk of crop failure and production costs, leading to demotivation among organic farmers. Some CSOs, government offices and activists are now promoting organic products and appreciating the hard labor of organic producers, but that is not enough.

The world is beleaguered by climate-related crises. Soil and human health are deteriorating, and Nepal is facing an increasing number of non-communicable diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Farming is becoming labor- and input-intensive, and the cost of farming is rising. Meanwhile, land productivity is decreasing. In this situation, regenerative agriculture is the only way forward. We should appreciate the pioneers of regenerative agriculture and promote organic products. However, organic producers and products in Nepal face discrimination at every step, despite their efforts to save nature and human health.

The author is an agroecology researcher at Forestaction Nepal

Nepal has been experiencing chronic political instability for years, primarily due to disputes between major political parties over power-sharing arrangements. Internal strife and petty fights within and among the parties for power have brought frequent changes in government formed as a result of compromise between major parties and fringe parties, especially after the adoption of a federal democratic republic polity, disappointing a people aspiring for stability, progress and prosperity for long. Ruling coalitions, formed to seize or hold onto power, have long been a feature of Nepal's political landscape. Although this coalition-based system occasionally promotes cooperative government, it frequently results in conflicts and instability.

The clash

In Nepal, coalition administrations are the result of partnerships between several parties. More often than not, practical realities and not shared ideologies are behind ruling coalitions involving major parties like the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center) and their junior partners. Due to a proportional representation system, which guarantees even smallest parties a place in the legislature, coalition-building becomes necessary. Although this system stipulated in the Constitution encourages diversity and representation, it also results in fragmented mandates, which necessitate ruling coalitions. In such alliances, conflicts often emerge around the assignment of ministerial responsibilities. Junior coalition partners feel left behind and charge the bigger parties with controlling important positions. Policy goals differ significantly, especially when it comes to foreign policy, federalism and economic changes.

Implications

A decade-long war has caused paralysis in governance. National development initiatives and economic recovery have suffered due to delays in crucial legislative and policy choices. Political unrest discourages foreign investment and has an impact on tourism, hitting the national economy hard. Business confidence has also decreased because of prolonged uncertainty. Frequent conflicts among ruling coalitions for power and prolonged instability have reduced public confidence in the democratic system. 

Way forward

Political observers predict that communication and compromise will be necessary to end disputes involving coalitions by ensuring the participation of all coalition participants in decision-making processes. The idea behind this exercise is to alleviate deep-entrenched feelings of marginalization. Creating a precise policy framework that describes the coalition's goals and tactics will aid in minimizing policy divergences. Coalition partners can avoid miscommunication and disagreements by having explicit, documented agreements that specify power-sharing arrangements, policy goals and dispute resolution procedures. Stability depends on creating strong democratic institutions capable of resolving disputes and guaranteeing that coalition standards are followed. Ideological differences may be closed and collaboration can be fostered by encouraging political parties to engage in consensus-building and communication. Restoring public participation in political processes can aid in restoring trust and guarantee that public officials remain answerable to their citizens.

Disputes within coalition governments bring to light the difficulties coalition politics inherently faces in a fast changing and varied political environment. Coalition governments encourage diversity and representation, but they also need careful handling of conflicting interests and power relationships. In order to ensure a stable and efficient government as Nepal moves closer to consolidating its democracy, it will be important to address these issues through unambiguous agreements, institutional development and consensus-building. 

The inherent difficulties of coalition politics are exemplified by conflicting goals and ideologies within Nepal’s ruling coalitions. In a multiparty democracy, ruling coalitions are necessary, such coalitions should have an appetite for compromise and the proclivity to put the greater good of the country above petty gains. Nepal’s political leaders should have the capacity to overcome these obstacles to foster political stability and long-term growth as the country continues on its democratic path. Conflicts within Nepal’s coalition administrations are a reflection of the larger difficulties of governing in a pluralistic democracy that is undergoing transformation. 

In a political environment marked by fragmented power, ruling coalitions are necessary, but they call for mutual respect, a careful balance of power and a common commitment to the advancement of the country. Nepal's future depends on the existing coalition’s capacity to resolve internal conflicts and provide stable administration. Notwithstanding obstacles on the way, a more stable and prosperous Nepal can be achieved through dedication and sincere cooperation.

What a gulf exists between the Federal Government’s aims to promote Nepal as an international hub for information technology and the existing state of play of regulating Artificial Intelligence in the country. Regardless of official declarations, policies and budget speeches focused on harnessing the IT sector, the country’s quest to, first, make sense, then regulate and finally leverage the unfolding AI revolution is still in its infancy.

Amid this scenario, the very first official policy document on AI, technically a concept paper coming from the Federal Government, might offer the much-needed blueprint upon which new policies and legislations can be drafted. If Nepal really wants to attract investors in the field of IT, then it needs to really get it right the way it is going to regulate artificial intelligence. The fact that the country is already a late comer in understanding how to regulate the former could be seen as an advantage if the government acts swiftly.

It needs to leap, jumping with decisiveness by quickly taking advantage of and internalizing the learning and experiences from those trailblazing nations that, in the last few years, have been breaking ground in terms of AI regulations. To do so, it is equally indispensable to work in partnership with experts from the civil society and the international community.

To review the latest developments and take stock of what is happening in this complex but fascinating area of policy making, I got in touch with two persons involved in the discussions around AI, Santosh Sigdel and Aakriti Kharel, executive director at Digital Rights Nepal and digital media specialist at UNESCO Nepal Office, respectively.

“The adoption of the Concept Paper on the Application and Practice of Artificial Intelligence by the government of Nepal is a welcome development. Key aspects of this paper include the prioritization of developing AI laws and policies, such as the AI Policy Framework, National AI Strategy, Data Protection Framework, AI Governance Structure, AI standardization, and the promotion of AI literacy” shares Sigdel to me via e-mail.

Indeed, a very comprehensive framework is what is required. Let’s not forget that AI could offer humanity some of the best ways to leverage progress for the common good but, we know very well, that the opposite is also very realistically possible. Unchecked and unregulated, AI can become a devastatingly effective tool against humanity.

Sigdel is crystal clear on the downsides of the AI revolution and we should not live under the illusion that a still developing nation like Nepal will be immune from them. “As AI technologies become more integrated into daily life, it is crucial for citizens to understand these technologies to benefit from their advantages and mitigate potential risks. AI intersects with human rights in significant ways, impacting not only digital rights but also other fundamental rights. AI systems can collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data, raising privacy concerns,” he shared.

Think about discrimination and inequalities, two elements that are still very much embedded in society. “AI has the potential to either mitigate or exacerbate existing inequalities and biases. If not carefully designed and implemented, AI systems can perpetuate and even amplify biases present in training data, leading to discriminatory outcomes in critical areas such as law enforcement and access to public services,” Sigdel adds.

The risks are so high that the United Nations has been at the forefront, pressing for a global discussion around the ethics of AI. The Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, even established an AI Advisory Board in October last year and the upcoming Summit of the Future in September, probably Guterres’ most ambitious undertaking since taking the helm of the UN since 2017, will try to hammer out an agreement on a Global Digital Compact that also will include aspects related to AI governance.

Within the UN system, UNESCO has been at the forefront of the conversation. “Nepal recognizes the significant impact of AI and is actively working on its ethical development” Kharel shares with me. “The UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics, adopted globally in 2021, serves as a vital guide for Nepal. This framework emphasizes human rights, transparency, fairness and human oversight in AI systems—values that align with Nepal’s focus on data privacy and ethical practices” she adds.

Positively, the Concept Note that was recently launched in a major event in Kathmandu is detailed enough to potentially pave the way for the Federal Government and the Parliament to take real and tangible actions.

According to the note, Nepal might have its own specialized AI agency. “The consideration of establishing a dedicated and specialized nodal agency to promote the use, application, regulation and governance of AI, as well as the encouragement of self-regulation, is positive,” Sigdel explains in his response. Will such a recommendation be acted upon?

We also need to ensure that any future policy making process related to AI is open and inclusive approach. These are two essential features for AI’s development. Sigdel strongly supports this view. “The process of AI policy-making should be open, transparent, consultative and participatory. The government should ensure the participation of all major stakeholders, including civil society, in the AI policy-making process.” “Civil society organizations should also be vigilant of the policy-making processes to ensure that diverse perspectives, including those of marginalized and vulnerable groups, are considered. This helps in addressing potential biases and ensuring inclusive AI practices,” he explains.

Kharel also guided me through what UNESCO has been doing to help the complex policy making cycle as much open as possible. “In Nov 2023, UNESCO and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCIT) together with the Kathmandu University and Digital Rights Nepal organized the Multistakeholder Dialogue on AI Governance.” “The event brought together government officials, civil society, academia, and tech leaders to discuss AI policy. While Nepal’s specific AI regulations are still in progress, discussions highlight an application-based approach that prioritizes data privacy, responsible development and protection for vulnerable populations,” she adds.

While there is an urgency for Nepal to follow through the policy-related recommendations of the Concept Note, we cannot ignore the basics, among other concerns: Digital and media literacy.

“One key recommendation on AI Ethics is for member-states to invest in and promote digital and media literacy to strengthen critical thinking and understanding of AI systems, thereby countering misinformation and hate speech. UNESCO recognizes the risk of AI spreading misinformation, especially in Nepal,” the UNESCO expert tells me.

So, at the end of the day, it should not only be about regulations of the AI sector in order to generate incomes for the country. No doubt that a strong policy framework based on the best policies available, starting from the EU AI Act and then adjusted to local context, is going to be instrumental to truly make Nepal an IT hub. But the implications of AI’s use and spread are much broader and certainly cross-cutting along the whole spectrum of policy-making.  

“UNESCO has been at the forefront conducting awareness-raising dialogues on information integrity, engaging with youth and civil society on media and information literacy, enhancing capacity of female journalists on digital safety, collaborated with local governments to integrate media literacy in school curricula, trained judges on international standards of human rights and freedom of expression in AI contexts”. The private sector has a self-interest in helping Nepal come up with a strong AI policy framework with clear guardrails. 

Kharel explained that UNESCO also encourages tech companies to adopt ethical AI guidelines to prevent hate speech and misinformation.

Can Nepal win the AI challenge? The stakes are very high. This is something that a resolute and determined Prime Minister like KP Oli can tackle head-on if he wants. Yet Oli also needs to thread through it carefully. The broader society must be engaged and involved. Oli would be dead wrong if he acted too fast and too furious.

Amid a myriad of problems, will AI become one of the PM’s priorities? Will he bother to listen to relevant experts? Will he embrace a fast-paced yet balanced approach to regulate and harness its positive potential for the development of Nepal, while minimizing the risks associated with it?