Who may decide, who must deliver, and where do the laws pull in different directions?
The Constitution was promulgated on 20 September 2015; elections at all three levels followed in 2017. Aligning older laws, shared powers and implementation remains a question to examine provision by provision.Constitution date · 2017 elections
Where should a legal comparison start?
Start with Article 57 and Schedules 5–9. Shared subject matter alone does not establish a conflict: compare the specific power, territory, conditions and legal version.
Also examine the applicable consistency rules in Article 57(6)–(7), residual powers in Article 58, and cooperation and coordination under Article 232. A report, bill or administrative allocation is not interchangeable with an enacted law.
These are research candidates from the existing dossiers, not established findings of invalidity. The source comparisons retain their research dates and unresolved questions.
7research candidates shown
No matching candidates. Try another search or clear the filters.
Services and rights · Federal / Provincial / Local
Who sets routes and fares?
Research candidate · legal review pending
Fixing public-transport routes and fares within a province or a city could fall under the federal 'national transport policy', the provincial 'transport' entry or local roads. The 1993 federal Act, written before federalism, still gives the power to a federal department, while later provincial and local Acts claim it for themselves. Which body's decision governs a given route, and whether the federal provision still applies inside provinces, is unclear.
Our translation: the Department's functions include fixing routes as necessary, considering passenger pressure, in order to run transport services, and fixing the fares of public vehicles running on those routes.
Law Commission consolidated text; authenticated 2049/09/22; the title page lists 11 amending Acts, the latest the Some Nepal Acts Amendment Act 2082 (2082/04/14). Whether the 2075 'Acts to align with the Constitution' amendment changed s.153 was not checked line by line.
Constitution of NepalSchedule 5 item 20; Schedule 6 items 12 and 20; Schedule 8 item 11
Our translation: federal list — 'national transport policy, railways and management of national highways'; provincial list — 'provincial highways' and '... trade, business, transport'; local list — 'local roads, rural roads, agricultural roads, irrigation'.
Law Commission Unicode text; Gazette 2072/06/03; amended 2072/11/16 and 2077/03/04.
Does fixing intra-provincial and urban public-transport fares fall under the federal 'national transport policy', the provincial 'transport' entry, local roads, or the concurrent lists?
Where s.153(gha) and a provincial Act conflict, which applies under Art. 57 and the Federation, Province and Local Level (Coordination and Inter-relation) Act?
Can a metropolitan city's own Act validly give its executive fare-setting power on roads that are provincial or national highways?
Dossier researched: · Check subsequent amendments before relying on it.
Services and rights · Federal / Provincial / Local
Who manages technical education?
Research candidate · legal review pending
Technical and vocational education is not named in any constitutional list. It could fall under 'education' in the shared list, under provincial 'higher education', under local 'secondary education' for school-level programmes, or under residual federal power. The 1988 Act predates federalism and keeps a single federal council that both regulates and runs schools, while provinces and local levels run similar schools; the division of roles, and whether the Act still fits the constitutional scheme, is unclear.
Our paraphrase: the Council is an autonomous, perpetual corporate body (s.4.1); the Government of Nepal may direct it on setting and certifying skill levels in technical education and vocational training (s.13); it deals with the Government of Nepal through the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (s.14).
Law Commission consolidated text; authenticated 2045/7/28; amended four times, most recently by the Act amending some Nepal Acts to align with the Constitution, 2075 (2075/11/19). That amendment did not change the Council's federal placement as far as the text shows.
Our translation: federal list — 'central universities, central-level academies, university standards and regulation, central library'; provincial list — 'provincial universities, higher education, libraries, museums'; local list — 'basic and secondary education'; shared list of all three levels — 'education, sports and newspapers'. Art. 58 gives residual powers (those not on any list) to the federation.
Law Commission Unicode text; Gazette 2072/06/03; amended 2072/11/16 and 2077/03/04.
Under which constitutional list (or Art. 58 residual power) does technical and vocational education fall, including school-level technical streams?
What does the Government's report detailing the functions in the schedules (the 'kaarya bistritikaran' report cited by the Auditor General) say about technical education?
Can a federal council regulate schools that provinces or local levels establish under their own laws?
Dossier researched: · Check subsequent amendments before relying on it.
Services and rights · Federal / Local
Can local governments add social-security benefits?
Research candidate · legal review pending
s.20(2) bars local 'additional' allowances 'under the same headings' that 'duplicate' the federal allowance, but it does not define when a local payment is a duplicate rather than a separate local scheme (for example a festival bonus for senior citizens, or a top-up for a group the federal scheme does not cover). The Constitution and the Local Government Operation Act give local levels a shared role in social security. It is unclear whether the payments the Auditor General recorded are barred by s.20(2), and whether s.20(2) itself fits the shared constitutional power.
Our translation: (1) the liability for social security allowances under this Act shall be the Government of Nepal's. (2) Provinces and local governments shall not distribute additional social security allowances under the same headings in a way that duplicates the allowance distributed by the Government of Nepal.
Law Commission consolidated text; authenticated 2075/06/02; amended 2075/11/19 and by the Social Security (First Amendment) Act 2079 (2079/03/31). s.20 on PDF p.7.
Our paraphrase: 'social security and poverty alleviation' appears both in the federal list (Schedule 5, item 32) and in the list of powers shared by the federation, provinces and local levels (Schedule 9, item 10). Art. 43 gives listed groups a right to social security as provided by law.
Law Commission Unicode text; Gazette 2072/06/03; amended 2072/11/16 and 2077/03/04.
Our paraphrase: in the shared-power areas of Schedule 9, and 'subject to federal and provincial law', local levels' functions include local social security and poverty-alleviation policy, laws and standards, local plans for target groups, and 'local social security plans and management'.
Law Commission consolidated text of the Local Government Operation Act 2074; latest listed amendment 2081/12/18. s.11(4)(cha) on PDF pp.28–29.
Dossier researched: · Check subsequent amendments before relying on it.
Revenue, grants and borrowing · Federal / Provincial / Local
When can equalization grants be reduced?
Research candidate · legal review pending
A permanent Act and the Constitution say the equalization grant follows the Commission's recommendation; a later annual Appropriation Act lets the federal government recalculate part of that grant according to its own revenue performance. If the two are read as conflicting, it is unclear which prevails — the later, specific annual Act or the general framework Act read with Art. 60 — and whether the Constitution allows the recommended amount to be reduced in this way.
Our translation: the amount of fiscal transfers that provinces and local levels receive shall be as recommended by the Commission (60(3)); the Government of Nepal shall distribute equalization grants on the basis of expenditure needs and revenue capacity (60(4)); the Commission recommends equalization grants (251(1)(b)).
Law Commission Unicode text; Gazette 2072/06/03; amended 2072/11/16 and 2077/03/04 (neither changed Art. 60).
Our translation: the Government of Nepal shall distribute equalization grants to provinces and local levels on the recommendation of the Commission, on the basis of their expenditure needs and revenue capacity.
Law Commission consolidated text; authenticated 2074/6/27; amended 2075/3/32 and 2075/11/19. Later amendments not confirmed.
Our paraphrase: equalization grants are paid in four quarterly instalments; the third instalment is fixed on the ratio of revenue collected to target up to end-Poush and the fourth is re-determined on revenue target and collection up to end-Chaitra.
Appropriation Act 2081 (Act No. 4 of 2081), authenticated 2081/03/30, for FY 2081/82; commences 2081 Shrawan 1.
Our paraphrase: one quarter of the equalization grant is transferred in each of four instalments (Bhadra, Kartik, Magh and Baisakh); the first and second instalments follow the initial estimate, and the third and fourth are 're-determined on the basis of the ratio of revenue collection to target' up to end-Poush and end-Chaitra respectively.
Appropriation Act 2082 (Act No. 3 of 2082), authenticated 2082/03/30, for FY 2082/83; text read from the Ministry of Law copy linked in the catalogue. Annual Act; spent at the end of the fiscal year.
Our paraphrase: the same four-instalment rule, with the third and fourth instalments re-determined by the ratio of revenue collection to target, is repeated for FY 2083/84.
Can an annual Appropriation Act validly reduce an equalization grant below the amount the Commission recommended, given Art. 60(3)–(4) and s.8 of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangement Act?
Is the Commission's recommendation on equalization grants binding as to amount, or advisory?
Which fiscal year does the reported 8.51 / 8.56 per cent cut relate to, and was any shortfall restored later?
Dossier researched: · Check subsequent amendments before relying on it.
Revenue, grants and borrowing · Federal / Provincial / Local
Who determines fiscal transfers?
Research candidate · legal review pending
Article 60(3) refers to the 'amount of fiscal transfers' without limiting it to equalization grants, while Article 60(6) leaves the distribution of conditional, complementary and special grants to federal law. The federal Acts that implement these provisions give the Commission a recommending role only on equalization grants. It is unclear whether the Acts fall short of Article 60(3), or whether Article 60(6) allows them to treat the other grants differently.
Our translation: Art. 60(3) — the amount of fiscal transfers that provinces and local levels receive shall be as recommended by the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission. Art. 60(4) — the Government of Nepal shall distribute fiscal equalization grants on the basis of expenditure needs and revenue capacity. Art. 60(6) — arrangements for distributing conditional, complementary and special grants from the federal Consolidated Fund shall be as provided by federal law. Art. 251(1)(b)–(c) — the Commission recommends equalization grants and prepares the bases for conditional grants.
Law Commission Unicode text; Gazette 2072/06/03; amended by the First Amendment (2072/11/16) and Second Amendment (2077/03/04). Neither amendment changed Art. 60 or 251 as far as the consolidated text shows.
Our paraphrase: s.8(1) — the Government of Nepal distributes equalization grants 'on the recommendation of the Commission'. s.9(1) — conditional grants are given 'according to the bases set by the Commission' under Art. 251(1)(c). s.10(5) and s.11(3) — the procedure and other arrangements for complementary and special grants 'shall be as determined by the Government of Nepal'.
Law Commission consolidated text; authenticated 2074/6/27 (Act No. 21 of 2074); amended by the Financial Act 2075 (2075/3/32) and two Acts of 2075/11/19. ss.8–9 on PDF p.5–6; ss.10–11 on PDF pp.6–7. Later amendments not confirmed.
Our paraphrase: in addition to its constitutional functions, the Commission recommends to provinces on provincial equalization grants and bases for conditional grants to local levels (s.3(1)(a)–(b)) and 'gives suggestions' to the Government of Nepal on grants it gives to provinces and local levels (s.3(1)(d)). The Act does not give the Commission a role in fixing the amount of conditional, complementary or special grants.
Law Commission consolidated text; authenticated 2074/6/27 (Act No. 17 of 2074); amended once, by the Some Nepal Acts Amendment Act 2075 (2075/11/19). s.3 on PDF p.2.
How should Art. 60(3) ('amount of fiscal transfers ... as recommended by the Commission') be read together with Art. 60(6) (conditional, complementary and special grants 'as per federal law') and Art. 251(1)(b)–(c)?
Does 'fiscal transfer' in Art. 60(3) include revenue sharing and royalty distribution as well as grants?
Has the Supreme Court interpreted Art. 60(3) in any decision?
Dossier researched: · Check subsequent amendments before relying on it.
Revenue, grants and borrowing · Federal / Provincial / Local
Who can authorize borrowing and guarantees?
Research candidate · legal review pending
Two related uncertainties. First, the Local Government Operation Act sets out how municipalities borrow (Commission limit plus assembly approval) without mentioning federal consent, while the Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangement Act requires that consent; it is not spelled out whether a loan taken without consent is invalid, merely irregular, or valid. Second, no Act we read expressly allows or forbids a local level to guarantee a loan taken by a user group or similar body, so the legal status and the liability of such guarantees are unclear.
Our translation: the federal government, provinces and local levels may take internal loans within the limit recommended by the Commission; provided that provinces and local levels must obtain the consent of the Government of Nepal before taking an internal loan. A request for consent must include the project, expected returns, repayment plan and lender details.
Law Commission consolidated text; authenticated 2074/6/27; amended 2075/3/32 and 2075/11/19. s.14 on PDF p.8. Later amendments not confirmed.
Our paraphrase: rural municipalities and municipalities may take internal loans for productive, employment-generating, revenue-raising and capital works within the limit recommended by the Commission, with approval of their assembly; other arrangements for borrowing shall be as provided by federal law.
Law Commission consolidated text of the Local Government Operation Act 2074 (authenticated 2074/6/29); the title page lists four amending Acts, the latest of 2081/12/18. s.68 on PDF pp.64–65.
Our paraphrase: s.14 provides for guarantees given by the Government of Nepal (for foreign loans for approved projects, for loans of public institutions building approved infrastructure, and counter-guarantees for provincial and local internal loans taken with federal consent). We found no provision in it allowing a local level to guarantee another body's loan. s.8(4) lets the federal government deduct unpaid loans taken from or guaranteed by it from a province's or local level's revenue share.
Law Commission text; authenticated 2079/06/23 (Act No. 28 of 2079). The title page lists no amending Act. s.8(4) on PDF p.5; s.14 on PDF pp.7–8.
Is a local loan that meets s.68(1) of the Local Government Operation Act but lacks federal consent under s.14 of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangement Act valid, voidable or merely irregular?
Does any law (including the Town Development Fund Act or local laws) authorise a local level to guarantee a loan taken by a user group or similar body?
Is the federal consent requirement compatible with the borrowing powers implied for local levels by the Constitution (Schedule 8 and Art. 251(1)(f))?
Dossier researched: · Check subsequent amendments before relying on it.
Staff and administration · Federal / Provincial / Local
Which service law governs provincial and local staff?
Research candidate · legal review pending
The Constitution expects a federal Act to govern the federal civil service, and the Employee Adjustment Act expects provincial and local service laws to follow its basic principles. Because that federal Act has not been made, the benchmark for provincial and local laws is either the pre-federal 1993 Act or missing altogether. Staff working under different arrangements in the same offices (for example federal staff, adjusted staff and staff on deputation) do not have a clear common framework for transfer and promotion between levels.
Our translation: Art. 285(1) — the Government of Nepal may form a federal civil service and other federal government services as needed; the formation, operation and terms of service of such services shall be as provided by federal Act. Art. 302 — the Government of Nepal shall make arrangements for services at the provincial and local levels and may adjust existing staff to the federation, provinces and local levels according to law.
Law Commission Unicode text; Gazette 2072/06/03; amended 2072/11/16 and 2077/03/04.
Our translation: when making laws on provincial civil service and local service, provinces and local levels shall take as their basis the basic principles and values of the law on the federal civil service in matters of staff selection, recruitment, appointment, transfer, promotion, conduct and departmental punishment.
Law Commission text; authenticated 2075/11/10 (Act No. 27 of 2075); commences immediately. The title page we read lists no amending Act. Later amendments not confirmed.
Our paraphrase: the Civil Service Act 2049, made for the unitary state, remains the main law governing civil servants serving the federal government; it is the text that the Employee Adjustment Act's reference to 'federal civil service law' in practice points to.
Law Commission consolidated text; royal seal and publication 2050/2/4 (Act No. 2 of 2050); the title page lists 11 amending Acts, the latest the Administrative Court Act 2076 (2076/06/24).
Dossier researched: · Check subsequent amendments before relying on it.
How should AI help find legal conflicts?
AI can help compare provisions and prepare questions for review. This release organizes existing research; it does not represent a completed AI audit of every law. No model runs when you open this page.
Establish the source: official text, date, amendments, commencement and jurisdiction; record gaps in OCR or translation.
Compare exact provisions: identify the actor, power or duty, affected right, geographic scope and exceptions. Test whether both rules can operate together.
Check competing readings, later amendments and court decisions. An English translation helps access; its edition must match the Nepali source.
Publish a reviewable candidate with source locators, uncertainty and possible remedies. Retain reviewer corrections and the evidence for each conclusion.
1013catalogued instruments;380linked to an official English translation record. These are catalogue counts, not counts of fully checked current texts. Provincial and local completeness, translation currency and a corpus-wide provision comparison remain unverified.
Can you resolve or improve a comparison?
Bring both provisions, official links, amendment dates, the practical problem and an alternative reading or proposed fix. Identify the government level and the right or responsibility affected.
