Judicial Precedents On Speedy Justice In Nepal
1. Supreme Court of Nepal — Full Bench Mandamus on Juvenile Cases (2022)
Facts:
A 17‑year‑old boy was arrested in Dolakha on April 24, 2022, and placed in a juvenile correction home (“judicial custody”) following an attempted homicide charge filed June 14, 2022 by the District Court. The case lingered un‑decided beyond the statutory timeframe under the Children’s Act, 2075 (Nepal) and the Constitution’s Article 20(9) which provides for hearing without unreasonable delay. Even though Section 37 of the Act envisaged disposing the juvenile case within ~120 days, the court remained pending.
Issue:
Whether undue delay in adjudicating a juvenile case (and detaining a child while the case is pending) violates the right to hearing without unreasonable delay / right to speedy justice.
Decision:
The Supreme Court issued a mandamus directing the subordinate court to expedite the case and resolve it within 120 days as per law. The Court said that reasons for delay must be clearly stated, and detention of a juvenile simply because the case is pending is impermissible if the delay is undue.
Principle Established:
The right to a hearing without undue delay is a component of the right to fair trial under Art. 20(9) of the Constitution.
For juvenile justice, statutory deadlines (120 days) must be respected; otherwise detention becomes arbitrary.
The Court emphasized supervision and priority for juvenile matters to prevent prolonged custody pending adjudication.
Significance:
This is a clear precedent in Nepal where the Supreme Court has affirmed timely adjudication as a constitutional right in juvenile proceedings.
2. Kathmandu District Court / Writ of Habeas Corpus – Phulmaya v. District Court Siraha (Habeas Corpus Case 078‑WH‑0008)
Facts:
A juvenile (child) was charged together with adult accused using a single charge‑sheet; the detention order was issued by a judge not assigned to a juvenile bench; hearings occurred under an improper bench. The question of jurisdiction, delay and procedural irregularity arose.
Issue:
Whether procedural irregularity plus delay in hearing a juvenile case (and combined with adult accused) violates the child’s right to speedy and fair hearing under the Constitution (Art 20(9)), Children’s Act and relevant regulations.
Decision:
The court (in its reasoning) observed that the law provides for separate charge‑sheet for child and adult; the Children’s Act requires general disposal of juvenile cases within 120 days; continuous hearing is required. Delay and improper bench assignment/panel violate the right to speedy justice.
Principle Established:
Procedural safeguards (child separate proceedings) and timely hearing are inter‑related: improper procedure + delay = violation of right to speedy justice.
The phrase “shall dispose … within 120 days” (Children’s Act § 37) is more than aspirational—it is a benchmark.
Significance:
This judgment underlines that in juvenile matters the right to speedy justice in Nepal has statutory backing and courts will pay attention to procedural and delay issues.
3. Constitutional Right to Hearing Without Unreasonable Delay — Referenced in Some Decisions – “Landmark Decisions” Compilation
Facts & Issue (general):
In a compendium of judgments the Supreme Court of Nepal emphasised that Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (to which Nepal is a party) guarantees hearing “without unreasonable delay” and that domestic law must reflect that. The court accepted that undue delays in civil and criminal proceedings infringe the fair hearing guarantee.
Decision & Principle:
The Court held that all aspects of fair trial include the timely adjudication; delays must be justified by the complexity of the case or conduct of parties, otherwise they amount to breach of the right. It stressed that reasonableness of delay depends on all circumstances (nature of offence, number of accused, workload of court etc.).
Significance:
While not tied to a single high‑profile case name, this jurisprudence gives constitutional grounding in Nepal for the right to speedy justice and sets out criteria for assessing whether delay is unreasonable.
4. Public Commentary & Observations on Delayed Justice in Supreme Court of Nepal (2022/2025)
Facts:
Although not a single case judgment per se, several reports indicate that the Supreme Court of Nepal has a large backlog — e.g., many cases pending for years, including petitions which have not been heard for more than 3‑5 years. For example, a news article noted more than 2,000 cases older than five years pending in the Court.
Issue:
While not strictly judicial decision, this body of commentary is relevant: it highlights systemic failure in providing speedy justice, thereby undermining the constitutional right.
Decision/Principle:
These observations have led courts and commentators to emphasise that justice delayed is justice denied; that backlog and idle benches are inconsistent with constitutional mandates for timely disposal; that the judiciary must prioritise case management and efficiency.
Significance:
They help frame the context in which the right to speedy justice is increasingly being recognised in Nepal as a right and not just a policy aspiration.
5. Mandamus for Timely Resolution of Children’s Cases (2024)
Facts:
A petition was filed when a juvenile child was being held in a juvenile centre because investigation/report was delayed. The District Court would not release the child despite statutory provisions mandating swift disposal. The Supreme Court intervened and issued a mandamus to ensure the verdict is not delayed, even warning that delays in providing documents should entail action against responsible agency or individual.
Issue:
Again, the core issue was delay in adjudication of child’s case and resulting detention — violation of right to speedy justice and personal liberty.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ordered the subordinate court to dispose of the juvenile case without delay and set out that if agencies (forensic labs etc) cause delays, action may be taken (fines on officials).
Principle Established:
Right to speedy justice in juvenile matters is enforceable.
Delays caused by investigative agencies cannot justify prolonged detention of children.
Courts may issue remedies (mandamus) and hold responsible agencies accountable for delay.
Significance:
Important as a newer precedent reinforcing speedy disposal in child justice context.
Summary of Key Legal Principles from these Precedents
The right to hearing without unreasonable delay is constitutionally guaranteed (Constitution of Nepal, Article 20(9)).
A “speedy justice” dimension is implicit in the fair‑trial guarantee and right to personal liberty (delays affect liberty).
Statutory deadlines (e.g., Children’s Act: 120 days for juvenile cases) are important benchmarks for timely disposal.
Delay is not just about backlog — courts assess whether delay is justified (case complexity, accused conduct, court workload) or “undue”.
Where detention or remand is involved (especially juveniles), delays in decision‑making translate into rights violations.
Courts may issue mandamus or other writs to subordinate courts/agencies to expedite disposal and may direct supervisory action.
Systemic backlog and infrastructural/administrative weaknesses (lack of judges, case‑management, coordination) undermine the right to speedy justice and have been acknowledged by the judiciary.
Some Observations / Challenges
Although the jurisprudence is developing, Nepal has relatively few landmark judgments specifically labelled “right to speedy justice” compared to older jurisdictions.
Many of the reported matters are system‑wide issues (backlog, delays) rather than celebrated individual judgments.
Enforcement of deadlines (e.g., juvenile 120 days) may still be inconsistent.
Delay often accrues due to investigative agency inactivity, forensic/lab delays, procedural mis‑assignment of bench, and lack of judicial resources.
The courts themselves have acknowledged the backlog and need for reform (case‑management, fast‑track benches, appointment of judges).
For adults and serious offences the balancing of complexity versus speed is still evolving in jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
comments