IIDS Supreme Court Visit Report – July 16, 2025
An IIDS delegation of seventeen members visited the Supreme Court of Nepal on 16th July 2025. During the visit, the delegation observed court proceedings from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM, gaining insights into the judicial process and the role of the Supreme Court in upholding constitutional values. Discussions in the courtroom touched upon constitutional petitions, public interest litigations, and recent landmark judgments shaping the legal landscape of the country.
This visit provided the delegation with a unique opportunity to engage with Nepal’s judiciary and deepen their understanding of the nation’s legal and constitutional framework.
The first part of our visit was a comprehensive introduction to Nepal’s judiciary, led by Ms. Shreya Sanjel, Judicial Officer. Ms. Sanjel led a brief, engaging discussion of the court proceedings, answering various questions regarding the structure and functions of the judiciary. For many of us, this was our first visit to the Supreme Court; not only did it introduce us to the foundations of the judiciary, but it also provided us with valuable insights into the broader legal and constitutional landscape of Nepal.
Nepal’s judicial system comprises the Supreme Court, seven High Courts, and seventy-seven District Courts. The Supreme Court functions as the highest court in the country. The seven High Courts consist of nine permanent and two temporary benches. Other local judicial committees operate at various levels to ensure that justice is accessible to communities across the country. Additionally, Nepal has a provision of specialized tribunals that address specific legal matters more efficiently, including a Revenue Tribunal, Foreign Employment Tribunal, Special Court, and more. A notable recent addition is the Consumer Court. Nepal’s judicial system has been responsive to contemporary needs and legal challenges.
One of the key topics discussed was the backlog of pending cases. While the number of pending cases decreased to 27,000 from over 33,000 last year, the massive volume urges the need for processing efficiency and revisions to case management. To improve efficiency, non-criminal cases have the option of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration. These alternatives offer parties more flexible, cost-effective, and time-efficient ways of resolving conflicts while reducing the burden on the higher courts.
Nepal’s legal system has evolved to incorporate modern protections to address contemporary challenges. In this progression, Nepal has adopted Miranda rights and the Tort Law. To highlight the current system’s capabilities and limitations, we discussed several notable cases. The Nijgadh Airport case, for example, exemplified the court’s challenge in balancing development with environmental protection. The Nijgadh case revealed another interesting challenge for the Court; the Supreme Court faced criticism for alleged micromanagement and overstepping into executive roles, especially in technical administrative matters. However, it was emphasized that this overstepping often stems from institutional weaknesses in the executive branch, which places the Court in a difficult position. While it is not the Court’s role to govern, judicial interventions become necessary when administrative failures threaten legal directives.
Overall, the session provided a unique opportunity for us to understand Nepal’s legal system. Ms. Sanjel drew interesting parallels between Nepal’s system and other judicial structures. This initial discussion also helped prepare us for what followed. Following this session, IIDS members were divided into 4 courtrooms, where we observed various hearings for various cases.
The type of cases discussed:
1. Criminal Cases: Criminal cases are directly related to acts that are considered crimes under the law, such as murder, theft, or assault. In such cases, the state (police or other government authorities) initiates legal action against the alleged offender.
2. Civil Cases: Civil cases involve disputes between individuals or groups, commonly concerning marriage, divorce, property, land, or inheritance. These cases are usually filed by the affected party (plaintiff) against another individual or group (defendant).
3. Writ Petitions: Writ petitions are constitutional and are filed when a person or group believes that their fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution, have been violated. These petitions are generally filed against state institutions, public officials, or laws that are alleged to be unjust.
Overview of the cases
Courtroom No. 1: Inherent Property case by two married daughters.
Background: Two daughters filed a legal petition against their father to claim a share in their parental property. They sought justice under the newer inheritance law, which had granted equal rights to daughters after the constitutional revolution in 2072
During our court visit, we witnessed a historic case involving daughters’ rights to inherit parental property. The lawsuit asked whether daughters who were married before October 1, 2015, or 14 Asoj 2072, might inherit under Nepalese law. The interpretation of the Muluki Ain’s law modification, which gave daughters equal inheritance rights going forward, was at the heart of the issue. Only daughters married on or after that date have the legal right to inherit their father’s property, and claims by those married earlier must be assessed under the previous legal provisions in effect at the time of their marriage or the case filing.
Court Room 2(8):
Background:
A construction company filed six complaints against another third-party company for, among other reasons, not paying them for the work that had already been done. The third-party company removed its bank guarantee after the project was finished, further complicating the payment process. The hearing was brief, and we arrived mid-session, which made it difficult for us to fully understand the situation.
Courtroom No. 3: Case against Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding the selection process of the National Cooperative Regulatory Authority (NCRA) for the position of member.
Background: In this case, a PhD holder, a scholar who competed for a position as a member of the National Cooperative Regulatory Authority (NCRA) through public service and was unable to pass the test, which is why he filed a case questioning the transparency and accountability of the selection process. The judge asked for his original answer sheet and evaluation sheet to evaluate the selection criteria. In witnessing this case, we observed how confident the plaintiff was in his hard work. By filing a case, he fought for his rights and fairer justice in the selection process.
Court no 4: Case against Financial Institutions.
Background:
A family borrowed money from Nabil Bank in 2062 B.S. They were able to make loan payments for the first two to three years. Eventually, they fell behind, and the bank sent out seven notifications requesting payment. Despite the repeated reminders, the loan was not paid off. Eight years after the loan was taken out, in 2070 B.S., the bank put the property up for auction and sold it to a third party. The original borrower’s child was 8 years old at the time and was ignorant of the debts .His father had taken a loan from the bank, and after his father’s death, the remaining family members were left to bear the burden of the debt.
The now-adult son filed a lawsuit in 2077 B.S., arguing that he was unaware of the loan or the house’s sale. He appealed to the court for more time to settle the issue, alleging that he was not given a fair opportunity to comprehend or deal with the situation. He was looking for justice and the chance to restore his family home. Three parties are involved in this case: Nabil Bank, the lending institution that auctioned the property, the son, representing the family of the original borrower and finally, the third-party buyer, who legally purchased the house during the auction.
Attorneys for the three parties—Nabil Bank, the borrower’s son, and the third-party buyer—presented their cases and provided supporting documentation before a two-judge panel while they awaited the outcome. Important legal and moral issues are brought up by the case, including the moral obligation of financial institutions to recover assets, the rights of minors in financial matters, and the fairness of the property auction process. The court’s decision in this case could have a big impact on future handling of cases like this one involving minor rights, inherited debt, and property repossession.
One of our teams was eventually required to leave the courtroom due to the nature of the case. In case of rape cases or juvenile cases, they are considered sensitive, and observers are not allowed to be in the room to maintain the privacy of the involved parties.
Conclusion: The end of our visit to the Supreme Court was marked by an insightful tour of the Judicial Museum, where we saw the ancient “Abhilekh” and historic “Shila Lekh” connected to Nepal’s legal and judicial history. The museum’s display of traditional lawyer attire provided a glimpse into the development of legal practice. This visit was a rewarding experience that raised many important questions while deepening our understanding of the legal system. We came away with many answers, a fresh desire to learn more, and guidance on how to stay up-to-date with legal news and significant cases, especially with the help of resources like “Kanun Patrika.”
Report by: Aakriti Dhungana (Jr. Research Assistant), Ayusha Koirala (Summer Intern) and Edited by Ariel Dodds (Summer Intern).