KATHMANDU: Nepal’s judiciary is meant to be independent, but in practice, it has long been entangled in political interference and patronage. Its recent revival remains precarious. In an unprecedented rebellion, Supreme Court justices turned against their own Chief Justice, Cholendra Shumsher Rana, accusing him of corruption and political meddling. His impeachment was a rare reckoning—an assertion that the judiciary would no longer be a pawn of power. Yet, even after his removal, the system remains in flux.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2021 to overturn a parliamentary dissolution signaled a judiciary willing to defend constitutional principles. But challenges persist. Political appointments continue to overshadow merit-based selections, career judges find themselves sidelined, and courts remain burdened with overwhelming caseloads and outdated systems. The fight for an independent judiciary is far from over. Whether Nepal’s courts can cement their newfound assertiveness or relapse into old habits remains an open question. Here is everything you need to know about Nepal’s judiciary:

What Is the structure of the court system in Nepal?
Nepal follows a unitary and integrated court system, though courts are geographically distributed in alignment with the country’s federal structure. Nepal’s judiciary operates within a three-tier system: the Supreme Court at the top, followed by High Courts, and District Courts at the grassroots level. Beyond these, specialized courts and tribunals handle specific legal matters.
At the top is the Supreme Court, which serves as the apex judicial authority, interpreting the Constitution and laws with binding decisions. Below it, each of the seven provinces has a High Court, with a total of eleven Benches for accessibility. The District Courts, one in each of the seventy-seven districts, handle general cases at the local level. Additionally, Specialized Courts and Tribunals exist for specific matters like revenue, labor, administration, and foreign employment. Quasi-judicial bodies and judicial committees also play a role in legal decision-making, subject to due process and appeal.

How many judges are there in Nepal?
At the Supreme Court, the nation’s highest judicial authority, 21 justices, including the Chief Justice, preside over cases that shape the country’s legal landscape. Their tenure lasts until the age of 65, as mandated by the Constitution.
The High Courts, spread across Nepal’s seven provinces, employ 160 judges. These courts, which have a total of eleven benches, handle appeals and oversee the administration of justice at the provincial level. Judges here retire at 62.
At the foundation of the system are the District Courts—one in each of Nepal’s 77 districts—where 287 judges preside over local cases. It’s here that justice meets the people, ensuring legal access at the most fundamental level.

What is the Supreme Court of Nepal, and why does it hold the highest judicial authority in the country?

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and the highest authority in the nation’s judiciary. Established in 2013 B.S. (1956 A.D.), it serves as the final arbiter of justice, ensuring that laws and government actions adhere to the principles of the Constitution. Unlike lower courts, which deal with specific cases within their jurisdictions, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the law at the highest level, set legal precedents, and oversee the functioning of all other courts in Nepal. It is also responsible for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, resolving disputes of constitutional significance, and maintaining the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

What is the historical background of the Nepali legal system?

The Nepali legal system has evolved through different historical periods. In the Ancient Period (before the 10th century B.C.), legal norms were shaped by Mundhum and Smriti texts, including Hindu religious scriptures. Courts were function-based, handling revenue collection (Kuther), criminal matters (Suli), welfare and development (Lingual), and family matters (Mapchok).

During the Medieval Period (from 1320 AD), under the Malla dynasty, Manav Nyayashastra (or Nyayabikashini), introduced by Jaya Sthiti Malla, consolidated the judicial system. Major courts included Kotiling (civil court) and Itachapali (criminal court), along with provincial and local-level courts.
In the Modern Period (starting in 1853 AD/1910 BS), early laws were based on royal edicts. The Rana regime introduced structured legislation with the Muluki Ain (National Code) of 1864, leading to modern courts such as The Kausal (supreme executive and legislative body), Sadar Courts, Gaunda Court, Jilla Adalat (district court), and Amal Adalat (civil court).

How has the Nepali justice model evolved?

Before 1992, Nepal followed the inquisitorial justice model, where the court played an active role in investigating cases and gathering evidence. During this period, several key legal developments took place. In 1853 AD (1910 BS), Nepal introduced its first codified law. The establishment of Pradhan Nyayalaya, now known as the Supreme Court, occurred in 1940 AD. The Judicial Administration Act was enacted in 1959 AD, followed by the Muluki Ain (National Code) in 1963 AD. Further judicial reforms took place with the introduction of the Judicial Administration Reform Act in 1973/74 AD.

After 1992, Nepal transitioned to the adversarial justice model, where two opposing parties present their cases before a neutral judge or jury. A significant milestone in this shift was the enactment of the State Cases Act in 1992, which further solidified the adversarial system in Nepal’s judicial process.

What are the prevailing major legislations in Nepal?

Nepal has several key legislations currently in effect that govern civil and criminal matters. The National Civil Code, 2017 outlines the fundamental principles of civil law, while the National Civil Procedure Code, 2017 governs civil court procedures. In criminal law, the Criminal Offences (Sentencing and Execution) Act, 2017 establishes guidelines for sentencing and punishment. The National Penal Code, 2017 defines criminal offenses and penalties, and the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017 regulates the procedural aspects of criminal trials. These laws collectively form the backbone of Nepal’s legal framework.

What is the Jurisdiction of Ordinary Courts of Nepal?

Each court level in Nepal has specific jurisdictions. The Supreme Court handles appeal, revision, review, and reference cases. It hears applications on interlocutory orders, initiates and decides cases of contempt of court, and transfers cases from one High Court to another. The court also sends cases for mediation and issues various writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo-warranto. Through its Constitutional Bench, the Supreme Court exercises judicial review and hears disputes related to the jurisdiction of federal, state, and local levels, as well as disputes concerning the qualifications of elected members of federal or state parliaments. Additionally, it provides directives to lower courts, formulates rules and regulations for the judiciary, and inspects and monitors subordinate courts and tribunals.

The High Court primarily handles appeal and reference cases. It also tries cases as specified by law, initiates and decides cases of contempt of court, and hears applications on interlocutory orders. The High Court has the authority to transfer cases from one District Court to another within its jurisdiction, send cases for mediation, issue writs, and inspect and monitor lower courts under its jurisdiction.

The District Court has general jurisdiction over all types of cases within its territorial boundaries, except as otherwise provided by law. It hears appeals from decisions made by quasi-judicial bodies and judicial committees at the local level. The court executes judgments, issues search and arrest warrants, and grants interlocutory orders. It also initiates and decides cases of contempt of court, sends cases for mediation, and issues writs of habeas corpus and injunction orders. Additionally, the District Court inspects quasi-judicial bodies and judicial committees.

How are judges appointed and removed in Nepal?

Judges in Nepal are appointed and removed through a structured process, ensuring judicial independence and competency. The Chief Justice of Nepal is appointed by the President based on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. To qualify, a person must be a Nepali citizen, hold a bachelor’s degree in law, and have at least three years of experience as a Supreme Court Justice.

Justices of the Supreme Court are also appointed by the President upon recommendation from the Judicial Council. Eligible candidates must be Nepali citizens with a law degree and meet specific criteria, such as serving as a Chief Judge or Judge of a High Court for at least five years, practicing as a Senior Advocate or Advocate for at least fifteen years, being a distinguished jurist with at least fifteen years of experience, or serving in a Gazetted first-class or higher post of the Judicial Service for at least twelve years.

High Court Judges, including the Chief Judge, are appointed by the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Judicial Council. To qualify, candidates must be Nepali citizens with a bachelor’s degree in law and fulfill one of the following conditions: having served as a District Court Judge for at least five years, being a Senior Advocate or Advocate with ten years of experience, working as a legal professional for at least ten years, or holding a Gazetted first-class post in the Judicial Service for at least five years.

District Court Judges are appointed by the Chief Justice following recommendations from the Judicial Council, with input from the Judicial Service Commission. Candidates must be Nepali citizens with a bachelor’s degree in law. Their selection is done through three different methods: promotion based on seniority, qualifications, and competency from Gazetted second-class officers of the Judicial Service with at least three years of service; an open competitive examination for Gazetted second-class officers of the Judicial Service with at least three years of service; or an open competitive examination for legal professionals with at least eight years of experience or those who have served in a Gazetted post of the Judicial Service for at least eight years.

What is the procedure for civil proceedings in Nepal?

Civil proceedings in Nepal follow a structured legal process that begins with the presentation of a lawsuit before the concerned District Court. The court officials conduct an initial review to ensure that procedural requirements such as locus standi (the right to sue), statute of limitations, jurisdiction, and proper format are met. If any requirement is not fulfilled, the lawsuit is returned with justification. If everything is in order, the lawsuit is formally registered.
Once the lawsuit is registered, a copy along with a summons is sent to the defendant, who is required to submit a statement of defense within a prescribed time. If there are concerns regarding standing, time limitation, or jurisdiction, a preliminary hearing is conducted. If legal issues arise that invalidate the case, it is quashed; otherwise, a date is set for both parties to appear in court.

During the trial, both sides present evidence and witnesses, and legal representatives argue their case. After all necessary evidence has been submitted, the court delivers its verdict within one month. If any party is dissatisfied with the decision, they have the right to appeal to a higher court within the legally specified timeframe.

What is the procedure for criminal proceedings?

Criminal proceedings in Nepal begin with the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) at the concerned police station. Based on the nature of the case, the court may issue an arrest warrant. The police then conduct an investigation within a specified timeframe and submit a report to the District Attorney, who files a chargesheet in the District Court on behalf of the state and the victim.

Once the chargesheet is filed, the court informs the accused of the charges, the evidence presented, and the prescribed punishment, and records their deposition. During the first hearing, the court decides whether to remand the accused in detention for trial, release them on ordinary bail, or release them on guarantee bail until the final verdict.

The trial proceeds with the presentation and examination of evidence and witnesses. Once all necessary evidence has been submitted, the court delivers its verdict within one month. If the accused is found guilty, a separate hearing is generally held to determine the sentence, which must be decided within thirty days of the verdict. If any party is dissatisfied with the court’s decision, they have the right to appeal to a higher court within the legally specified timeframe.

What is the writ procedure, specifically for Habeas Corpus in Nepal?

The writ procedure for habeas corpus begins with the filing of a petition by the detainee or any other person on their behalf. This petition must be in the prescribed format and include all necessary details. Once registered, the petition is ordinarily presented before the bench within three days for a preliminary hearing.

If the court finds the petition valid, it can issue an order requiring the respondent to appear within three days, along with the detainee and a written reply. The respondent must then submit their reply within the specified timeframe.
After reviewing the case, if the court finds the detention unlawful or unjustified, it may order the immediate release of the detainee on bail. In certain cases, the court may also order the transfer of the detainee to proper custody if required by law.

What is the Judicial Council, and why does it matter?

The Judicial Council is the highest oversight body responsible for ensuring judicial independence, accountability, and integrity in Nepal. Its primary role is to oversee the appointment, discipline, and ethical conduct of judges across all levels of the judiciary.

The Council is crucial because it prevents political interference in judicial appointments and ensures that judges are selected based on merit rather than favoritism. It also monitors judges’ performance and investigates complaints against them.

Who are the members of the Judicial Council?

The Judicial Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of Nepal, who plays a central role in overseeing judicial appointments and maintaining judicial integrity. The council also includes the Minister for Law and Justice, ensuring a connection between the judiciary and the executive branch. The senior-most Supreme Court judge brings experience and institutional knowledge, while a jurist nominated by the President provides an independent perspective on legal and constitutional matters. Additionally, a senior advocate with at least 20 years of experience, nominated by the Nepal Bar Association, represents the legal profession, ensuring that the judiciary remains accountable to the broader legal community. Together, these members work to uphold the independence, efficiency, and ethical standards of Nepal’s judicial system.

What powers does the Judicial Council have?

The Judicial Council plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of Nepal’s judiciary. It is responsible for recommending judicial appointments at all levels, from the Supreme Court to District Courts, ensuring that only qualified individuals serve on the bench. In cases of misconduct, the council investigates allegations and takes disciplinary action, which may include suspension or removal. It also oversees judicial performance, enforces ethical standards, and has the authority to transfer or reassign judges when necessary. Beyond disciplinary and appointment functions, the Judicial Council conducts research on judicial reforms, working to enhance the overall effectiveness of the court system. Each year, it submits a report on the state of Nepal’s judiciary to the President, providing insights into judicial performance, challenges, and necessary reforms.

What is the Judicial Service Commission, and how does it differ from the Judicial Council?

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) plays a crucial role in recruiting, managing, and overseeing Nepal’s judicial personnel, ensuring that the nation’s courts function efficiently. Unlike the Judicial Council, which primarily focuses on judges, the JSC is responsible for judicial officers, court administrators, and legal personnel.
Chaired by the Chief Justice of Nepal, the JSC also includes the Minister for Law and Justice, the senior-most Supreme Court judge, the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission, and the Attorney General of Nepal. Together, they ensure that judicial staff are not only qualified and well-trained but also meet the high standards required to uphold justice in the country.

What happens if a judge violates ethical standards?

Judges in Nepal are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards, and any misconduct can lead to serious consequences. The Judicial Council is responsible for reviewing complaints against judges and has the authority to take disciplinary action. For minor offenses, a judge may receive a formal warning. In cases where allegations require further investigation, the judge can be temporarily suspended. If a judge is found guilty of serious violations, the Judicial Council has the power to remove them from office, ensuring accountability and maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.

What role does the President of Nepal play in the judiciary?
The President’s role in judicial matters is only ceremonial. While the President formally appoints Supreme Court judges, these appointments are based on recommendations from the Judicial Council and confirmed from parliamentary hearings. The President also receives annual reports on the state of the judiciary but does not directly interfere in judicial decisions.

What are the biggest challenges facing Nepal’s judiciary today?

Nepal’s judiciary operates within a strong legal framework, yet it grapples with persistent challenges that hinder its efficiency, credibility & neutrality. One of the most pressing issues is the backlog of cases—overburdened courts, limited judicial resources, and procedural delays have led to prolonged trials, denying many citizens timely justice.
Political influence, though less overt than in the past, continues to cast a shadow over judicial appointments and verdicts, raising concerns about the true independence of the judiciary. Corruption and ethical violations among some judicial officers have further eroded public trust, with allegations of bribery and favoritism surfacing over the years.

Beyond these systemic issues, the judiciary also struggles with inadequate infrastructure. Many courts operate without modern facilities, digital case management systems, or sufficient staff, making the entire judicial process slower and less accessible. While efforts are underway to address these concerns, reform remains an urgent necessity.

What Does the Future Hold for Nepal’s Judiciary?

The judiciary has long been a cornerstone of Nepal’s democratic framework, yet its independence and effectiveness have fluctuated, particularly during periods of political upheaval. Today, as the country navigates the complexities of democracy, the judiciary finds itself at a crossroads—caught between its constitutional mandate and the persistent specter of political influence.

One of the most striking developments is the shift in judicial leadership. Over the next decade, Nepal is unlikely to see a Chief Justice rising from the ranks of career judges. Instead, appointments will be drawn directly from legal professionals, marking a significant departure from tradition. While this change aims to diversify the judiciary, it also raises concerns about continuity, experience, and the long-term impact on institutional stability.
To safeguard judicial independence, reforms are urgently needed. The system must prioritize transparency, enforce merit-based appointments, and fortify ethical standards. The Judicial Council, which oversees appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions, will be instrumental in ensuring that political interests do not overshadow judicial competence. Strengthening case management, enhancing judicial training, and enforcing stricter ethical codes will be critical to restoring public trust in the courts.

This resurgence of judicial authority is not without precedent. Nepal’s courts have historically played a defining role in upholding constitutional principles and human rights. Landmark rulings and institutional reforms have reaffirmed the judiciary as a guardian of democracy. However, its credibility remains fragile. To sustain progress, the judiciary must navigate political pressure while reinforcing its commitment to impartiality and justice.

Is AI a revolution or a risk for Nepal’s judiciary?

As Nepal’s judiciary looks to the future, one of the most profound questions is the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial proceedings. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology’s concept paper on AI, released in July 2024, has sparked debate among legal practitioners and judicial leaders. AI’s ability to process vast amounts of data, automate routine administrative tasks, and enhance case management presents a compelling opportunity. Yet, the integration of AI into legal reasoning and judicial decision-making raises profound ethical and practical concerns.
Law, at its core, has always been shaped by human judgment, historical precedent, and moral reasoning. While AI can streamline administrative processes—such as automating case scheduling and cause list publications—it cannot replace the nuanced deliberation required in courtrooms. The challenge will be to harness AI’s strengths while ensuring that human conscience remains at the heart of justice.

The future of Nepal’s judiciary will be defined by its ability to balance tradition with innovation, independence with accountability, and human judgment with technological advancement. Whether it emerges stronger or more vulnerable will depend on the choices made today.