Laws · Analysis

Right to information versus secrecy duties: officials face one law that requires disclosure and others that punish unauthorised disclosure

Possible conflict between lawsMedium confidenceEnacted ActReform recommendation

The Right to Information Act 2064 gives every citizen access to information held by public bodies, subject to five listed exceptions, and leaves classification of sensitive information to a committee under s.27. The National Information Commission reports that many laws in force conflict with the RTI Act, so officials are unsure whether to disclose or withhold: one law says to give information, another makes unauthorised disclosure punishable. It also reports that classification under s.27 has never been completed and that the oath of office and secrecy adds to the confusion. The Commission does not name the conflicting laws; the Civil Service Act's secrecy provisions are one example we identified.

Laws and sections involved

सूचनाको हक सम्बन्धी ऐन, २०६४ s.3(1)–(4); s.27(1)–(3); s.37
Our paraphrase: every citizen has the right to information and access to information held by public bodies (s.3(1)–(2)); information on five subjects (sovereignty and national security, criminal investigation, serious harm to economic or commercial interests, harmony between communities, personal privacy and safety) shall not be provided, but a public body cannot avoid disclosure without proper and adequate reasons (s.3(3)); a committee chaired by the Chief Secretary classifies such information and sets how long it stays secret, subject to review by the Commission (s.27); matters in this Act are governed by this Act and other matters by prevailing law (s.37).
Law Commission consolidated text (authenticated 2064/4/5; Act No. 4 of 2064); amended by the Act Amending Some Nepal Acts 2072 (2072/11/13) and the 2075 constitutional-conformity amendment (2075/11/19). ss.3 on PDF pp.3–4, 27 on PDF p.12, 37 on PDF p.16. Official text
निजामती सेवा ऐन, २०४९ · Civil Service Act, 2049 s.34(क); s.46
Our paraphrase (example identified by us, not named by the Commission): a civil servant may be retired if proven to have given secret government documents or information to an unauthorised person or body (s.34(क)); no civil servant may, without government authority, give or tell any secret or legally prohibited matter learned in official duty to an unauthorised employee, private person or the press, and this continues after leaving service (s.46).
Law Commission consolidated text (Act No. 2 of 2050); eleven amending Acts listed, the latest the Administrative Court Act 2076 (2076/06/24). s.34 on PDF p.49; s.46 on PDF p.60. The heading of s.46 has not been read against the RTI Act's terms by any source we opened. Official text

The apparent issue

The RTI Act defines what may be withheld and puts the burden on public bodies to justify withholding. Other laws, such as service laws, impose general secrecy duties and penalties for unauthorised disclosure without referring to the RTI Act's exceptions. Section 37 says matters covered by the RTI Act are governed by it, but it does not say expressly that the RTI Act overrides secrecy provisions in other laws. Because the s.27 classification has not been done, officials have no authoritative list of what is secret.

Evidence

The National Information Commission recommends: 'Many Acts and laws that conflict with the Right to Information Act are in force. Because of this, responsible officials of public bodies are confused about whether to make information public or keep it secret under the RTI Act. One Act says information must be given, while another makes a person liable to punishment for making information public without authority.' It calls for immediate amendment of such laws to bring uniformity and increase access. National Information Commission Chapter 8 (recommendations), item 6, printed p.84 (PDF p.99)
The Commission states that all attempts so far to classify information under s.27 have failed, 18 years after the law was made, and that it has taken this as indifference by responsible officials to its requests. It also recommends replacing the customary oath of office and secrecy with an oath of transparency, because the secrecy oath can confuse officials about their duties. National Information Commission Chapter 8, items 4 and 7, printed p.84 (PDF p.99)
The RTI Act's ss.3, 27 and 37 and the Civil Service Act's ss.34 and 46 were read in the Law Commission's consolidated texts. Nepal Law Commission RTI Act PDF pp.3–4, 12, 16; Civil Service Act PDF pp.49, 60

Possible readings

Reading 1: the RTI Act is the specific law on access to information and, through s.37 and its purpose, governs what may be withheld; a secrecy duty in another law covers only information within the s.3(3) exceptions or properly classified under s.27, so an official who discloses under the RTI Act is not 'unauthorised'.
Reading 2: service-law secrecy duties are separate obligations of employment; until the government authorises disclosure or the law is amended, an individual official who releases information without authority may still face departmental action, even if a requester was entitled to it under the RTI Act.
Reading 3: the two can be reconciled if the RTI Act's information officer, acting under s.6 and the Commission's orders, is treated as the 'authorised' channel; the conflict then arises mainly where officials act outside that channel or where specific Acts create absolute secrecy.

Why it matters in practice

If officials cannot tell which law applies, they may default to withholding, delaying or denying information that the RTI Act makes available, and appeals to the Commission may rise. Officials who do disclose may be exposed to disciplinary risk.

Hypothetical example

Hypothetical: a citizen asks a district office for the evaluation sheet of a completed road contract. The information officer thinks it falls outside the s.3(3) exceptions, but the section chief warns that releasing official documents without ministry authority breaches the service law's secrecy rule. The office delays, and the citizen appeals to the Commission.

Possible improvements and trade-offs

Amend the RTI Act to state expressly that it prevails over inconsistent secrecy provisions in other laws, except for information properly classified under s.27.
Single clear rule; requires care so that genuinely sensitive information protected by special laws (security, tax, banking) is not exposed.
Review and amend the conflicting laws one by one (the Commission's recommendation), starting with service laws and the oath of secrecy.
Tailored to each law; slow, and needs an agreed inventory of conflicting provisions, which no source we opened provides.
Complete the s.27 classification so that officials have an authoritative list of protected information.
Uses the existing Act; a broad classification could itself restrict access, and it does not remove secrecy duties in other laws.

Questions for legal review

Does s.37 of the RTI Act, read with s.3, give the RTI Act priority over secrecy provisions in other Acts, and has the Supreme Court said so?
Which specific provisions of other Acts make disclosure that the RTI Act permits punishable?
Is an information officer acting under the RTI Act 'authorised' for the purposes of s.46 of the Civil Service Act?

Research status

Researched: 2026-10-12
Confidence: Medium confidence — The National Information Commission, the statutory body overseeing the RTI Act, states the conflict directly, and the RTI Act's text was read. Confidence is medium because the Commission does not name the conflicting laws, and the Civil Service Act example is our own identification.
Review: Not yet reviewed by a qualified lawyer.

Still unresolved

No inventory of the laws the Commission considers in conflict was found.
Supreme Court decisions on the relationship between the RTI Act and secrecy provisions were not searched.
The Right to Information Regulation 2065 and the oath-of-office legislation were not opened.