Laws · Analysis

Indigenous Nationalities Commission and the National Foundation for Upliftment of Adivasi Janajati: overlapping mandates and two different legal definitions of 'Adivasi Janajati'

Possible conflict between lawsMedium confidenceEnacted ActReform recommendation

The Auditor General reported in two successive annual reports that the responsibilities given to the Adivasi Janajati Commission by its 2074 Act and those given to the National Foundation for Upliftment of Adivasi/Janajati by its 2058 Act overlap, and called for laws to be revised to bring uniformity in the identification and definition of these communities. Reading the two Acts side by side, both bodies have functions on language, culture, history, traditional skills and programmes for disadvantaged members of the communities, and the two Acts define 'Adivasi Janajati' differently: one by a fixed schedule, the other as groups the government designates on the Commission's recommendation.

Laws and sections involved

आदिवासी/जनजाति उत्थान राष्ट्रिय प्रतिष्ठान ऐन, २०५८ · National Foundation for Upliftment of Aadibasi/Janjati Act, 2002 s.2(क); s.5; s.6(क)–(ण)
Our paraphrase: 'Adivasi/Janajati' means a caste or community listed in the Schedule that has its own mother tongue, traditional customs, distinct cultural identity, distinct social structure and written or unwritten history (s.2(क)). The Foundation's functions include programmes to promote and protect language, script, literature, history, art, culture and traditional skills; research; protecting traditional knowledge as intellectual property; mother-tongue schools; information collection; special programmes for poor and marginalised groups; and preparing a schedule of advantaged and disadvantaged Adivasi/Janajati (s.6).
Law Commission consolidated text (royal seal 2058/10/25; Act No. 20 of 2058); three amending Acts listed, the latest the 2075 constitutional-conformity amendment (2075/11/19). ss.2, 5–6 on PDF pp.1–4. Official text
आदिवासी जनजाति आयोग ऐन, २०७४ · National Indigenous Nationalities Commission Act, 2017 s.2(ख); s.7(क)–(ध)
Our paraphrase: 'Adivasi Janajati' means a caste or community designated by the Government of Nepal on the Commission's recommendation (s.2(ख), as amended in 2075). The Commission's functions include studying the overall situation of the communities and recommending reforms; recommending special programmes for economically or socially disadvantaged members; studying language, script, culture, history and art and recommending programmes to protect them; helping protect and commercialise traditional skills and knowledge; recommending a list of surnames; and monitoring implementation (s.7).
Law Commission consolidated text (authenticated 2074/6/27; Act No. 19 of 2074); amended by the Act Amending Some Nepal Acts 2075 (2075/11/19). s.2 on PDF pp.1–2; s.7 on PDF pp.4–6. The Commission is established under Article 261 of the Constitution. Official text

The apparent issue

Two Acts give two public bodies functions in the same field and use two different tests for who belongs to the group they serve. The Foundation's Act ties the definition to its own schedule and also tasks the Foundation with preparing a schedule of advantaged and disadvantaged groups; the Commission's Act ties it to government designation on the Commission's recommendation. Neither Act says how the two definitions or the two bodies' overlapping work relate to each other.

Evidence

The Auditor General reported that the responsibilities given to the Commission by the Adivasi Janajati Commission Act 2074 and those given to the Foundation by the National Foundation for Upliftment of Adivasi/Janajati Act 2058 overlap. It also noted, from the Commission's annual report, challenges including the lack of an integrated national policy and coordination of programmes for these communities. Office of the Auditor General Adivasi Janajati Commission, para 2, printed p.75 (PDF p.105)
The following year the Auditor General repeated that the two Acts' responsibilities overlap and said that laws should be revised to bring uniformity to the introduction, identification and definition of Adivasi Janajati communities. It also recorded, from the Commission's annual report, that the classification of these communities had not been revised and no standard for identifying Adivasi had been prepared. Office of the Auditor General Adivasi Janajati Commission, para 2, printed p.78 (PDF p.110)
Sections 2, 5 and 6 of the Foundation's Act and ss.2 and 7 of the Commission's Act were read in the Law Commission's consolidated texts. Nepal Law Commission Foundation Act PDF pp.1–4; Commission Act PDF pp.1–2, 4–6

Possible readings

Reading 1: the roles are complementary rather than duplicative: the constitutional Commission studies, recommends and monitors, while the Foundation implements programmes. The overlap the Auditor General sees is in subject matter, not in legal function.
Reading 2: several functions are substantively the same (for example research on language and culture, protection of traditional knowledge, programmes for disadvantaged members), so two budgets and two bodies cover the same work; the later Act did not adjust the earlier one.
Reading 3: on the definition, the 2074 Act's designation mechanism may be read as the later, constitutionally grounded test that should guide the government, with the 2058 schedule continuing only until the government designates groups on the Commission's recommendation.

Why it matters in practice

Two definitions could lead to different lists of eligible communities for programmes, quotas or data collection, and overlapping mandates could lead to duplicated spending or gaps where each body expects the other to act.

Hypothetical example

Hypothetical: a community not in the 2058 Act's schedule asks to be recognised. The Commission studies it and recommends designation; the Foundation says it can fund programmes only for groups in its schedule. The community is recognised under one Act but not served under the other.

Possible improvements and trade-offs

Revise the laws to adopt one definition and identification standard (the Auditor General's recommendation), for example by making the Foundation's schedule follow the designation under the 2074 Act.
Consistency across programmes; reclassification is sensitive and needs wide consultation with the communities concerned.
Clarify roles in law: the Commission recommends and monitors; the Foundation implements; remove functions from one Act where both do the same thing.
Reduces duplication; the Foundation's governance and federal placement may also need review, since culture and language also involve provinces and local levels.
Merge the Foundation's functions into a ministry or another body and keep the Commission as the constitutional oversight body.
Simplifies institutions; risks losing the Foundation's community-led governance and specialised programmes.

Questions for legal review

Which definition of 'Adivasi Janajati' governs for government programmes after 2074: the schedule in the 2058 Act or designation under s.2(ख) of the 2074 Act? Has the government designated any groups under the 2074 Act?
Does any function in s.6 of the Foundation's Act conflict with the Commission's constitutional functions under Article 261, or are they legally compatible?

Research status

Researched: 2026-10-12
Confidence: Medium confidence — The Auditor General states the overlap in two reports and the two Acts were read. Confidence is medium because the Auditor General does not specify which functions overlap, and Reading 1 (complementary roles) is plausible.
Review: Not yet reviewed by a qualified lawyer.

Still unresolved

The Schedule to the 2058 Act and any government designation under the 2074 Act were not checked.
The Commission's and the Foundation's own annual reports were not opened.