Rethinking Nepal’s judicial committees

Judicial committees in Nepal, established under Article 217 of the 2015 Constitution, represent a pioneering effort to decentralize justice delivery. Their primary mandate is to resolve local disputes at the municipal and rural municipal levels, bridging the gap between formal legal systems and traditional community practices. Operationalized through the Local Government Operations Act (LGOA) of 2017, these committees handle cases ranging from property disputes and water-sharing conflicts to unpaid wages and domestic conflicts. With over 150,000 cases pending in Nepal’s formal courts, these committees play a vital role in alleviating judicial backlogs while ensuring access to justice for all.

Despite their promise, critics argue that these committees have focused heavily on supply-side mechanisms such as processes, structures and jurisdiction, while neglecting the demand side—ensuring justice delivery for marginalized and vulnerable groups. Supreme Court Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla emphasizes that these committees must adopt a victim-centered, gender-sensitive approach based on the fundamental principles of justice. Justice must not only be delivered but also felt and realized by those who seek it. This article examines the historical evolution, challenges, global insights and reformative potential of judicial committees in Nepal, offering a path forward to make justice accessible, inclusive, and impactful

Historical foundations and legal framework

Nepal’s justice system has long been rooted in community-based practices, guided by principles of restorative justice, legal pluralism and cultural norms. During the Kirant dynasty, Mundhum, a customary code, emphasized reconciliation and social harmony. The Lichhavi and Malla dynasties institutionalized systems such as Panchali and Pancha Samuha, which combined local norms with administrative governance. Under the Shah dynasty, Dibyopadesh codified justice, creating a hierarchical system that incorporated community-led dispute resolution.

In modern times, the Panchayat system, formalized through the Village Panchayat Act of 1961, marked a significant step toward decentralizing justice. These mechanisms aimed to resolve local disputes but often excluded marginalized groups, perpetuating elitist dominance. The Local Self-Governance Act of 1999 sought to further decentralize judicial powers, empowering village development committees (VDCs) to mediate disputes. However, political instability and a lack of resources limited their effectiveness.

The 2015 Constitution institutionalized judicial committees as part of Nepal’s federal restructuring. Their legal framework includes jurisdiction over 13 categories of disputes, including property boundaries, minor criminal offenses, and domestic issues. These committees are designed as quasi-judicial bodies, intended to provide alternative dispute resolution while supplementing formal courts. However, ambiguities over their role—whether they are courts or supplementary mechanisms—have led to inconsistent practices across municipalities. Elected representatives lead judicial committees, emphasizing their democratic accountability, but their lack of integration into the judicial hierarchy raises questions about procedural fairness and impartiality.

Supply-side focus, demand-side gaps

While judicial committees are theoretically well-positioned to deliver justice, their operational realities reveal significant gaps. One of the most pressing issues is the absence of mechanisms linking justice seekers to these committees. Marginalized groups, including women and the poor, often lack the knowledge or resources to access these committees. Paralegal committees, which previously served as vital bridges, have been largely dismantled. Their reinstatement could provide essential support, such as legal counseling, community mediation and transitional justice mechanisms, ensuring that vulnerable populations can navigate the justice system effectively.

Resource constraints further undermine the effectiveness of these committees. Many committees lack dedicated office spaces, hearing rooms, trained personnel and access to legal libraries. These deficiencies disproportionately affect rural municipalities, where logistical barriers exacerbate the challenges of delivering justice. Domestic violence cases in Rupani rural municipality highlight the limitations of these committees. The absence of trained mediators and psychosocial support hindered their ability to address sensitive disputes, leaving victims without meaningful resolutions. In contrast, Dhulikhel municipality demonstrates the potential of judicial committees when they integrate traditional norms with modern mediation techniques. By successfully mediating a water-sharing conflict, the committee underscored the importance of cultural sensitivity and contextual understanding in justice delivery.

Another criticism of these committees is their overemphasis on “positive/statutory law,” focusing on procedural adherence at the expense of substantive justice. Theoretical frameworks such as procedural justice emphasize fairness, impartiality and inclusivity as essential components of justice delivery. However, these principles are often sidelined in practice, with judicial committees prioritizing processes over outcomes. Justice must not only adhere to legal standards but also address the real-world needs and experiences of those seeking redress.

Effective local justice

Nepal’s judicial committees can benefit by studying international models that balance procedural rigor with community engagement. The Philippines’ Lupon Tagapamayapa operates at the barangay level, offering a community-driven mediation system that resolves disputes efficiently and cost-effectively. Its focus on accessibility and stakeholder participation highlights the importance of engaging local communities in justice delivery.

India’s Gram Nyayalayas integrate village-level dispute resolution with formal judicial oversight. These courts ensure procedural consistency while remaining accessible to rural populations. South Africa’s community courts, rooted in restorative justice principles, harmonize traditional practices with modern legal frameworks, making them particularly effective in addressing culturally sensitive issues.

Bihar’s community mediation programs provide a compelling example of inclusivity. Data show that diversity among mediators correlates directly with greater trust and effectiveness in dispute resolution. Nepal could adopt similar practices to ensure that judicial committees reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, enhancing their legitimacy and public trust.

These global models demonstrate the value of procedural clarity, inclusivity and community engagement in strengthening localized justice systems. Judicial committees must adapt these lessons to align their operations with both local contexts and international best practices.

Toward inclusive justice

To transform judicial committees into effective instruments of justice delivery, Nepal must address both structural and conceptual challenges. Reinstating paralegal committees is a crucial step toward bridging the gap between justice seekers and judicial committees. These committees can facilitate community outreach, provide paralegal support and empower marginalized populations to access justice mechanisms.

Expanding mobile legal clinics and mediation programs is another critical reform. Mobile clinics offering free legal counseling and transitional justice services can bring judicial committees closer to rural and disadvantaged communities, ensuring that justice is accessible to all. Public awareness campaigns and targeted interventions are equally important to educate communities about their rights and the functions of Judicial Committees.

Legislative amendments are necessary to clarify the role and jurisdiction of judicial committees, resolving ambiguities that hinder their operation. Training programs focusing on gender-sensitive dispute resolution, case management, mediation techniques and legal literacy must equip committee members with the skills needed to handle complex cases effectively. Judicial committees must also prioritize outcomes over processes, adopting a justice delivery approach that emphasizes fairness, impartiality and inclusivity.

Drawing on global best practices, Nepal can integrate lessons from the Philippines, India and South Africa to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of its judicial committees. By fostering community engagement, promoting diversity and ensuring procedural consistency, these committees can become transformative platforms for equity and empowerment.

Conclusion

Judicial committees in Nepal are a bold experiment in localized justice delivery, reflecting the country’s commitment to empowering communities and decentralizing governance. However, their potential remains largely unrealized due to operational inefficiencies, resource constraints, and a disconnect between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation. By addressing these challenges and adopting a justice delivery approach, Nepal can transform judicial committees into effective mechanisms that deliver meaningful outcomes for all.

The path forward requires reinstating paralegal committees, expanding mobile legal clinics and clarifying the role of judicial committees within the broader justice system. Inclusive practices, gender sensitivity and public engagement must be prioritized to ensure that justice is accessible and impactful. With thoughtful reforms and a commitment to equity, Nepal’s judicial committees can set a global benchmark for localized justice systems, bridging the gap between legal mandates and the lived realities of those they serve.

​​​​​The author is an advocate and development practitioner