By 
07-02-2025
Marco Resconi
South East Asia Researcher,
Global Human Rights Defence.
One of Nepal’s most notable characteristics is the country’s natural and cultural diversity, which has been emphasised through the years by devolving one-fifth of its territory to the creation of protected areas where such diversity could be preserved (Smith, 2025).
Facts of the case
At the end of July 2024, a law passed by the Nepalese parliament threatened the existence of the country’s protected areas, like national parks, as it allowed the construction of modern infrastructures such as hotels, railway lines, and energy plants within them. In particular, Nepal has twelve national parks, six conservation areas, and thirteen buffer zones that extend across its territory, such as the Sagarmatha, the Manaslu, and the Annapurna. Native communities have always lived within them, and although they sometimes faced relocation due to the creation of new national parks, the 2024 law threatened their very existence as their living environment would be damaged by the construction of roads and cable cars and the exploitation of natural resources and trees necessary to the natives’ lives.
Concerns about the law
Since the approval of the law in July, many have raised concerns about it, especially concerning the protection of the human rights of Nepal’s native population. For instance, the committee representing 27 organisations that have a long experience in conservation stated that the Nepalese legislation allows the Government to make such a decision, although it overrides native people’s priorities. Alongside the committee, several activists have been campaigning against the law, like senior lawyer Mr. Padam Bahadur Shrestha, who argued that the Government had passed the law only to favour business investors and increase tourism in the country (Raj Joshi, 2025).
January 2025 ruling
On January 15th, 2025, Nepal’s Supreme Court annulled the 2024 law, reasoning that it would hinder both conservation and human rights. According to Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, head of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal and responsible for the annulment, the new law was controversial as it envisioned the construction of hotels and cable cars inside protected areas. This would not only have been detrimental to the environment, but it would have also destroyed the lives of hundreds of native inhabitants of those lands, thus amounting to an infringement of human rights law. It is worth noticing that among the four judges of the Supreme Court that voted in favour of the annulment, Justice Sapana Malla defended her position by stating that Nepal’s protected areas should be safeguarded for future generations based on the principle of generational equity and it is wrong to assume that development can only take place where there is damage to the environment or Indigenous people.
On the other hand, those people who had invested in developing projects in protected areas highlighted issues with the Supreme Court’s decision. Among them, Supreme Court Judge Hari Phuyal disagreed with his colleagues voting against the annulment of the law, fearing that the ruling might impact the country’s economy in the future.
Legally, the Supreme Court Decision annulled Sections 5(A) and 6(1A) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029. In fact, both sections allowed companies to perform physical development projects within national parks, reserves, or conservation areas regardless of the presence of the native population. In annulling such provisions, the Supreme Court reasoned that they violated fundamental rights (Regmi, 2025). From a broader perspective, the two sections were introduced with several other amendments aimed at creating more favourable conditions for companies to operate in the country.
Finally, it is important to note that the January decision of the Supreme Court aligns with Article 51(g) of the Nepalese Constitution, which emphasises that state policies should primarily be aimed at protecting, promoting, and ensuring environmentally friendly and sustainable use of natural resources in line with national interests and the rights of indigenous people (Ayadi, 2025).
Conclusion
The topic presented above is a good example of how the protection of environmental law and the protection of human rights towards native populations can go hand in hand. Nepal’s Supreme Court has been able to safeguard its national environment and has also protected its native population living in protected areas, thus reaching both an environmentally ambitious goal and safeguarding the rights of hundreds of natives.
Sources and further readings:
Joshi Abhaya. (2025, January 15). Nepal’s top court strikes down law allowing development in protected areas. Mongabay News <https://news.mongabay.com/2025/01/nepals-top-court-strikes-down-law-allowing-development-in-protected-areas/> accessed 7 February 2025.
Smith Andrew. (2025, January 2021). Nepal Supreme Court Bans Large Business Development in Protected Areas. VOA News. <https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/nepal-supreme-court-bans-large-business-development-in-protected-areas/7940918.html> accessed 6 February 2025.
Ayadi Prakash. (2025, January 30). Everything You Need to Know About Nepal’s Supreme Court Verdict That Halted Development in Protected Areas. Nepal News. <https://nepalnews.com/s/explainers/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nepals-supreme-court-verdict-that-halted-development-in-protected-areas/> accessed 7 February 2025.
Regmi Shreyada. (2025, January 21). Supreme Court invalidates laws against construction inside Protected Areas. The farsight. <https://farsightnepal.com/news/325> accessed 7 February 2025.
Comments