Nepal’s prison system reflects the deep contradictions of a country that has enshrined human dignity and humane treatment in its Constitution but has failed to translate these guarantees into practice. Overcrowding, poor facilities, and a purely custodial approach have left correctional facilities overwhelmed and ineffective. Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits torture and cruel treatment, while Article 21 secures every person’s right to dignity, yet prison conditions in Nepal remain far from these commitments.
The Prison Act, 2079 introduced a significant legal breakthrough by incorporating provisions for humane treatment, classification of inmates, and the possibility of open prisons. Particularly important is Section 41 of the Act, which explicitly authorizes the establishment and management of open prisons, outlining the criteria for selecting eligible prisoners and the conditions under which they may serve their sentences in less restrictive environments. This section embodies a shift from viewing prisons solely as spaces of confinement to institutions of correction, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration. However, despite the legal foundation, practical implementation has been timid, with only a handful of facilities in Nuwakot and Pokhara functioning under the open or semi-open model.
The reformist intention of the legislature is further supported by the Criminal Offense (Sentencing and Execution) Act, 2074, particularly Section 28, which provides courts with discretion to impose non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment. Under this provision, probation, parole, community service, or other supervisory mechanisms can be applied in place of incarceration, subject to specific terms and conditions designed to ensure accountability. This provision complements the philosophy of open prisons by reducing reliance on imprisonment for non-violent offenders and promoting rehabilitative sentencing. Yet in practice, judges have been reluctant to fully exercise these powers, and the probation system remains underdeveloped and disconnected from the open prison framework.
Experiences from the few open prisons in Nepal demonstrate the transformative potential of this model. Inmates in Nuwakot and Pokhara engage in agriculture, carpentry, and other vocational activities, with a portion of their earnings supporting their families. They live under minimal security, governed largely by trust and self-discipline. This aligns with the intent of Section 41 of the Prison Act, which envisions open prisons as mechanisms of rehabilitation rather than exclusion. Comparative evidence from countries like India, where Rajasthan’s open prisons have functioned successfully for decades, and from Scandinavia, where open and semi-open prisons form the mainstream correctional system, further reinforces the practicality and effectiveness of this approach.
The judiciary has echoed this reformative vision. The Supreme Court of Nepal has, through multiple rulings, directed the State to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and explore alternatives to custodial punishment in line with constitutional mandates. The Court has recognized that incarceration must not merely punish but must prepare inmates for reintegration. However, judicial pronouncements have not been matched by executive commitment, and without budgetary support or political will, the directives remain aspirational rather than operational.
Critically, Nepal’s hesitation stems not only from administrative inertia but also from entrenched societal attitudes. Many perceive open prisons as leniency, ignoring that overcrowded, punitive prisons actually heighten risks to public safety once inmates are released. Reformative measures such as those envisioned in Section 41 of the Prison Act, 2079 and Section 28 of the Sentencing Act, 2074 are not concessions to offenders but investments in safer communities. They recognize the inevitable truth that prisoners will return to society, and the State must decide whether they return as broken individuals or as rehabilitated citizens.
For Nepal to address its correctional crisis, open prisons must become policy rather than experiment. This requires amending the Prison Act, 2079 to provide clear and transparent criteria for eligibility, ensuring oversight and accountability, and linking probation and parole more coherently with open prison management. Courts must more actively apply Section 28 of the Sentencing Act to divert non-violent and first-time offenders from closed prisons. The government must allocate resources for training, infrastructure, and monitoring. And civil society, academia, and the media must help shift public perception by highlighting the successes of rehabilitative justice models.
Prisons are not merely holding cells; they are mirrors of the State’s humanity. Continuing to ignore constitutional guarantees and legislative provisions will perpetuate a system of abuse, inefficiency, and insecurity. The open prison model authorized under Section 41 of the Prison Act, 2079, coupled with the non-custodial alternatives under Section 28 of the Sentencing Act, 2074, offers Nepal a pragmatic, cost-effective, and humane path forward. The question is whether the State has the courage and will to put its own laws into practice, or whether these progressive provisions will remain unimplemented words on paper while prisons collapse under their own weight.
