KATHMANMDU: Nepal’s education sector is once again in turmoil as thousands of community schoolteachers, under the Nepal Teachers’ Federation, continue street protests in Kathmandu demanding immediate passage of the long-delayed School Education Bill. The protest began on April 2 after the federal parliament was prorogued without advancing the bill, which has been stalled in a House committee for over 18 months.
Despite government appeals for dialogue—including from Deputy Prime Minister Prakash Man Singh and Education Minister Bidya Bhattarai—teachers have refused talks, insisting the bill be endorsed in its current form with past agreements honored. The Cabinet has since summoned a new parliamentary session for April 25, pledging to facilitate the bill’s approval. However, Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire has stated the bill is unlikely to pass in this session, complicating the situation further.
The confrontation echoes the September 2023 protests that shut down over 29,000 public schools nationwide. Key unresolved issues include whether teacher management falls under federal or local governments. As the new academic year begins, schools remain closed, enrollment is stalled, and the Relief Quota Teachers’ Association continues a separate protest. The standoff highlights deepening concerns over constitutional authority, delayed reforms, and political interference in public education.
Who are the teachers protesting, and what organizations do they represent?
The current wave of protests in Nepal’s education sector is led primarily by the Nepal Teachers’ Federation, the largest umbrella body representing public school teachers across the country. This federation brings together multiple teachers’ unions and associations, giving it a wide base and nationwide presence. The leadership is elected, and its current chair is Laxmi Kishor Subedi, who has taken a firm stance against further negotiations until the new School Education Act is passed incorporating previous agreements.
In addition to the Federation, Relief Quota Teachers’ Association has emerged as a parallel voice in the protest movement. This group represents approximately 40,000 teachers hired on a contractual basis by local governments to fulfill staffing shortages in community schools. These teachers, despite playing critical roles, often lack job security and full rights. Notably, this group has refused to abide by the six-point agreement reached between the Federation and the government last year, claiming their concerns were sidelined.
The protesting teachers come from across Nepal’s 77 districts, cutting across rural and urban divides. Their political affiliations are diverse but historically rooted in leftist activism—many have links to teachers’ unions affiliated with major political parties, especially the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Maoist Centre. However, the Federation claims its current agitation is not partisan, but policy-focused.
Collectively, these educators are responsible for teaching over five million students in 29,000 public schools. With the new academic session starting and answer sheets of high school students left unchecked, the protest has crippled Nepal’s public education system. It is not merely a wage or service demand protest but a broader resistance against a proposed legal framework that would affect their administrative affiliation, benefits, security, and long-term career trajectory.
What are the teachers demanding from the government?
The Nepal Teachers’ Federation (NTF), which represents public school teachers nationwide, has submitted a comprehensive 14-point list of demands as the foundation for its ongoing protest. These demands are centered around safeguarding job security, upholding teachers’ professional dignity, ensuring fair recruitment and promotion processes, and preserving the quality and integrity of the public education system.
Core Demands of the Federation:
The Federation emphasizes that these demands are not merely in the interest of teachers but also vital for ensuring long-term educational quality. According to NTF, demotivated and insecure teachers are unable to deliver effective learning outcomes, and the current state of uncertainty only worsens student performance and public trust.
Additional Demands Include:
A particularly sensitive subset of the protest comes from Relief Quota Teachers, who number nearly 40,000. They demand:
NTF leaders argue that these demands reflect both the spirit of earlier government commitments and constitutional rights. However, critics—including some lawmakers and constitutional experts—say that certain demands, such as federal control over education and formal inclusion in the state hierarchy, run counter to Nepal’s federal structure and risk undermining parliamentary authority.
In essence, while the Federation claims its struggle is rooted in protecting education and teacher welfare, the debate over who should control the sector—and how reforms should be passed—remains deeply political and constitutionally complex.
What happened during the 2023 protest, and what was agreed upon?
In September 2023, thousands of public-school teachers launched a Kathmandu-centric protest against the introduction of the School Education Bill in Parliament. They objected to several provisions, particularly the government’s proposal to assign teacher management responsibilities to local levels, in line with the 2015 Constitution.
The protest rapidly escalated. Over five million students were left without classes as 29,000 public schools shut down. Teachers flooded the capital from across the country, disrupting city life and creating political pressure. Within days, the government initiated emergency dialogue, leading to a six-point agreement between a government panel (led by then Deputy PM Narayan Kaji Shrestha) and the Federation’s panel (led by then president of the Teachers Federation, Kamala Tuladhar).
Key points of the agreement included:
Despite this, the Relief Quota Teachers’ Association opposed the deal, claiming it excluded their specific concerns. They resumed protests and are still active today. Although the agreement promised to honor past deals and uphold parliamentary supremacy, the bill was never passed. As of April 2025, the bill remains stuck in committee, sparking this new protest wave.
Why has the School Education Bill not been passed yet?
Despite repeated assurances from the government, the School Education Bill has been languishing in Parliament for over 18 months. Introduced in September 2023, the bill has since been subjected to intense debate, receiving over 150 amendment proposals from lawmakers across party lines.
The main hurdle is political disagreement over teacher management. The Constitution assigns school education management to local governments, but the teachers’ lobby wants it under federal control. Some MPs back the constitutional framework, arguing that giving federal authority over teacher appointments undermines decentralization. Others, often with political ties to the teachers’ unions, support the centralization demand.
A sub-committee of the Education, Health, and Information Technology Committee is currently reviewing the bill and conducting province-level consultations. These consultations have yielded contradictory feedback—some favoring federal authority, others supporting local control—making consensus difficult.
Further complicating matters is the executive-legislature tension. The government cannot revise the bill directly, as it is now “the property of Parliament.” Instead, MPs must propose amendments respecting legislative independence. Any executive intervention without respecting due process would be viewed as interference.
On April 16, 2025, Speaker Devraj Ghimire confirmed that the bill would not be passed in the current budget session, further fueling teacher frustration and protest mobilization.
How has the government responded to the renewed protest in 2025?
The government has made multiple overtures for dialogue in response to the April 2025 protest, but teachers have consistently rejected talks, insisting that their demands were already agreed upon and should be legislated without delay.
On the first day of the protest, the Ministry of Education invited the Federation to a dialogue table. The Federation declined, stating that no meaningful progress could be made unless the bill was endorsed first. Last Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Prakash Man Singh, along with Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak and Education Minister Bidya Bhattarai, waited in vain for the teachers’ delegation to show up for negotiations.
Federation chair Laxmi Kishor Subedi has taken a hard stance, arguing: “We have had ample dialogues and have reached different agreements in the past. Let the law be enacted incorporating the already agreed provisions.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, upon returning from the BIMSTEC Summit in Bangkok, struck a conciliatory note, saying the issue would be resolved through dialogue. However, Speaker Devraj Ghimire’s announcement that the bill won’t be endorsed this session has worsened tensions.
The government’s challenge now is to resolve the impasse without violating the principle of parliamentary sovereignty or giving in to street pressure, which risks setting a dangerous precedent.
What are the constitutional issues surrounding teacher management in Nepal?
Nepal’s 2015 Constitution ushered in a federal structure that redefined the distribution of power between federal, provincial, and local governments. Education, particularly school education up to grade 12, falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of local governments as per Schedule 8 of the Constitution. This makes local units constitutionally responsible for teacher recruitment, deployment, evaluation, and management.
However, in practice, this mandate has collided with legacy centralization. Until federalism was implemented, teacher management was centrally overseen by the Ministry of Education and the Teacher Service Commission. Teachers’ unions are used to dealing with federal agencies and fear inconsistent practices, politicization, or exploitation if managed by 753 local governments with varying capabilities and governance styles.
The constitutional tension lies in the clash between legal devolution and practical resistance. While the constitution favors decentralization, powerful unions rooted in the old centralized model argue that teacher rights, benefits, and career progression need a uniform national policy. They worry that local governments may lack technical expertise and budgetary discipline, leading to disparities and insecurity.
The Supreme Court has previously interpreted education as a concurrent responsibility, and constitutional experts like Bhimarjun Acharya have noted that while service delivery is local, standard-setting and salary structure could remain federal. The real issue is coordinating federal legislation with constitutional mandates—which the bill has failed to do convincingly.
In the broader sense, this dispute also highlights Nepal’s incomplete federal transition. Many laws, including the Education Act, Civil Service Act, and Police Act, have not been updated to align with the constitution, causing confusion in implementation. Teacher management is only one—albeit major—manifestation of this transition crisis.
Why are relief quota teachers particularly dissatisfied?
Relief quota teachers—an estimated 40,000 individuals—are among the most vocal and dissatisfied groups in the ongoing protest. These teachers were hired on temporary, contract-based arrangements over the years by government programs to fill urgent staffing gaps, especially in remote community schools. While their services have been essential, their employment status remains precarious.
Relief quota teachers receive less salary, fewer benefits, and no job security compared to permanently appointed teachers. They are often excluded from promotion tracks and lack access to pension, insurance, or transfer facilities. Despite working in the same classrooms, they are treated differently under the law.
In 2023, the government and Nepal Teachers’ Federation reached a six-point agreement but failed to adequately address relief teachers’ grievances. As a result, the Relief Quota Teachers’ Association rejected the deal and intensified protests. Their key demands include:
Relief teachers argue that without job regularization, they risk being phased out under the new law. They’ve accused the Federation of failing to represent their interests and have organized parallel protests, including boycotts of classes and central demonstrations.
The Education Ministry, for its part, claims that addressing their demands without a competitive process may violate civil service norms. However, given their long service (some have worked over 15 years), the association insists that experience and contribution must count toward regularization.
Their anger reflects a broader issue: Nepal’s education reforms have disproportionately burdened temporary workers, even as the state fails to enforce equity in employment policy.
How have students and parents been affected by the ongoing protests?
The ongoing teachers’ protest has deeply disrupted the lives of students and parents across Nepal. With over 29,000 public schools closed, answer sheets from the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) remain unchecked, and uncertainty looms over upcoming Grade 12 exams, leaving nearly five million students stranded in academic limbo.
This disruption comes at a particularly sensitive time—the start of the new academic year, which typically sees student enrollment, distribution of textbooks, and classroom assignments. The immediate fallout has been:
Parents’ associations have expressed frustration. Many acknowledge the legitimacy of teachers’ demands but feel that students should not be used as leverage. Education experts have warned of a “learning loss crisis” caused by repeated political disruptions—including the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, and now labor strikes.
Some local governments have attempted to reopen schools by deploying alternative arrangements or appealing to teachers directly, but union pressure has kept most public teachers off duty. Students in rural areas, especially in the Karnali and Sudurpashchim provinces, are worst affected, with limited internet access and no alternative learning platforms.
There is also a risk that prolonged closure will increase dropout rates. Past data shows that children—especially girls and those from marginalized communities—often don’t return to school after long disruptions.
Thus, while the protest is framed as a labor rights issue, its fallout reveals a systemic fragility in Nepal’s public education system and an absence of emergency learning contingency plans.
What role are political parties playing in the protest?
Political parties are deeply intertwined with the teachers’ protest, even if the Nepal Teachers’ Federation claims neutrality. Historically, teachers’ unions have maintained ideological affiliations with major political parties—especially the CPN-UML, Nepali Congress, and CPN (Maoist Centre).
Several Federation leaders have political histories. Chairperson Laxmi Kishor Subedi is known to have ties with the left movement. The Relief Quota Teachers’ Association is reportedly influenced by leaders with past Maoist ties.
Despite this, major parties are reluctant to publicly back the protest. The ruling coalition (led by CPN-UML and Nepali Congress) fears backlash if they are seen as anti-teacher. At the same time, they cannot bypass Parliament’s legislative process without undermining constitutional procedure.
Opposition parties, including the Maoist Center, have criticized the government for failing to pass the bill and letting the situation spiral. Yet, none have made concrete efforts to broker a compromise. In Parliament, the Education Committee has become a battlefield of conflicting party positions—some backing federal management, others siding with teachers’ centralization demand.
Political analysts argue that many MPs are “playing both sides”—publicly supporting decentralization while privately supporting the teachers to appease their voter base. Moreover, several lawmakers fear political fallout in their constituencies if they are seen opposing teachers, who are influential at the local level.
This political duplicity has prolonged the deadlock. What’s clear is that unless major parties demonstrate leadership in mediating consensus, the legislative process will remain stalled and teachers’ frustrations will continue to mount.
Is the protest legal, and does it challenge parliamentary sovereignty?
Legally, teachers in Nepal have the right to organize and protest, as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Article 17, which ensures freedoms of assembly, association, and expression. However, as civil servants under essential services, teachers also bear ethical and professional duties, especially during examination and academic periods.
The current protest is controversial because it has refused to honor existing agreements, disrupted national exams, and is making demands that could interfere with the constitutional authority of Parliament. Critics, including lawmakers and legal scholars, argue that insisting on the passage of a bill in a specific form amounts to undue pressure on the legislative process.
Speaker Devraj Ghimire has stated that no bill can be endorsed through street pressure and that the School Education Bill is now Parliament’s property. Any revisions must come from the House Education Committee and not the executive.
On the other hand, the Nepal Teachers’ Federation defends its action as a defensive protest, claiming it is upholding past agreements with the state, which the government is now reneging on. They argue that their demand is not to override Parliament but to ensure it honors commitments made through formal negotiation.
Constitutional experts are divided. Some, like Bhimarjun Acharya, believe teachers are within their rights to demand legislative action, but should not disrupt services that affect millions of students. Others warn of a dangerous precedent: if every stakeholder starts issuing ultimatums to Parliament, legislative sovereignty could be undermined.
In sum, while the protest is technically legal, it sits in a grey zone—ethically questionable, politically loaded, and potentially disruptive to Nepal’s fragile democratic process.
How has the government responded to the ongoing protests?
The government’s response to the teachers’ protest has been a mix of appeasement, procedural delay, and firm warnings. On one hand, the Ministry of Education has extended repeated invitations to the agitating teachers for negotiations. On the other, ministers and lawmakers have emphasized that the School Education Bill must follow due parliamentary process, asserting that protests cannot be allowed to dictate the course of legislation.
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who once supported teachers’ movement, has called for restraint and dialogue but stopped short of issuing any executive orders to address their demands. Meanwhile, Education Minister Bidya Bhattarai has been criticized for not showing adequate initiative to resolve the crisis, though she has emphasized the need for long-term reform over short-term appeasement.
The government has also tried to divide the movement. It signed a six-point agreement with the Nepal Teachers’ Federation in 2023, hoping to diffuse tensions, but failed to implement key promises. As the protest intensified in 2025, it urged local governments to reopen schools through alternative arrangements, but the move failed due to union resistance.
The Ministry of Education has maintained that teacher recruitment, management, and promotion must comply with constitutional mandates and that over-centralization would go against federalism. It has also defended the School Education Bill, arguing that it incorporates local autonomy, internal promotion, and professional pathways.
Still, critics say the government has failed to communicate clearly, build consensus, or act decisively. Its biggest failure has been the non-implementation of prior agreements, which has eroded trust with teachers. Protesters argue that the state promises under pressure but delays execution, forcing repeated strikes.
How does the School Education Bill seek to change existing provisions?
The School Education Bill, registered in 2023 and currently under consideration in Parliament, aims to replace the outdated Education Act of 1971. It is part of the broader legislative overhaul required to align Nepal’s education system with the 2015 Constitution.
Key provisions of the bill include:
While education experts have welcomed many reforms in the bill, including a greater push toward accountability and equity, the most contested provision remains the localization of teacher management. Teachers’ unions argue this will create inconsistency and erode service benefits, while the government maintains it is essential for empowering local governments.
Critics also point out that the bill does not provide transitional guarantees for existing temporary teachers or a roadmap for harmonizing federal, provincial, and local authority. Its implementation plan, timelines, and budget implications are vague.
Thus, while the bill attempts modernization, it fails to build consensus with key stakeholders, triggering mass opposition and deadlock.
Why are community school staff also protesting alongside teachers?
Community schools in Nepal employ a range of non-teaching staff, including office assistants, accountants, librarians, and hostel caretakers. These employees are often hired on a school-based, contract basis, receiving low wages, no pension, and little job security.
Their protest—aligned with the larger teachers’ movement—stems from exclusion and neglect in the School Education Bill. The bill provides no clear service structure or legal protection for community school staff. There is ambiguity on who will manage their recruitment, regulate their contracts, and pay their salaries.
Key demands of community school staff include:
Many of these staff have worked for over a decade, but their contribution to running public schools has been largely ignored in legislative processes. They face exploitation, often being paid less than the minimum wage, and working without contracts or access to grievance redressal.
The protest, therefore, is a cry for inclusion. Like teachers, community staff fear that if the bill passes in its current form, they may be rendered disposable, especially under local governments with tight budgets and political interference.
As the education system reforms, staff argue that equity must be extended beyond classrooms—to those who keep the system running behind the scenes.
What are the implications of the protest on education reform and governance?
The 2025 teachers’ protest underscores the fragility of Nepal’s federal transition, especially in sectors like education that require cooperation across multiple government levels. The protest has slowed down legislative reform, paralyzed public schools, and cast doubt on the political will to implement the Constitution faithfully.
Several implications emerge:
Ultimately, unless the government, unions, and Parliament find a shared middle ground, Nepal’s education reforms will remain trapped in a cycle of resistance, compromise, and delay—failing both teachers and the millions of children depending on them.
