When Nepal adopted its 2015 constitution, the document enshrined a fundamental principle: Citizens possess an inherent right to form associations. Article 17 was not merely legal text but a deliberate rejection of decades of centralised control over civic life. The constitution further mandated that the state must encourage civic participation to advance social justice and inclusion. Civil society organisations were envisioned as essential partners in building a more democratic, inclusive and accountable Nepal.

A decade on, the partnership between the state and civil society faces serious challenges. The government’s 2025 draft bill on social organisations introduces regulatory mechanisms that could fundamentally alter how civic organisations operate, shifting from an enabling framework towards one focused primarily on oversight and control.

A pattern of suspicion

This assault on civil society is neither accidental nor isolated. The 2025 draft marks the third attempt to regulate social organisations under the premiership of KP Sharma Oli, following similar efforts in 2016 and 2019. Each iteration has shared the same troubling characteristics: Suspicion of civic autonomy, centralised oversight and mechanisms designed to control rather than enable associational life.

The earlier drafts failed precisely because civil society leaders recognised their authoritarian tendencies. The 2016 version, initially prepared under the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare, adopted a developmental framing. When the 2019 draft shifted authority to the Ministry of Home Affairs, advocates immediately objected to the security-focused approach. Yet the 2025 draft not only preserves this problematic framing but amplifies it.

The architecture of control

The new bill’s most fundamental flaw lies in its centralisation and surveillance mindset. While appearing to align with Nepal’s federal system through four levels of registration (local, district, provincial and federal), all registrars remain tethered to the Ministry of Home Affairs, transforming what should be a decentralised partnership into a hierarchy of gatekeepers.

This design deliberately undermines federalism’s core principle of local autonomy. Rather than empowering municipalities to regulate local associations according to community needs, the bill creates multiple bureaucratic layers between citizens and their right to associate. The result is a system that pays lip service to federal structure while ensuring central government control at every level.

By housing civil society oversight within the Ministry of Home Affairs, the draft treats associations as security concerns rather than democratic institutions. This framing carries profound implications for how bureaucrats will interpret their regulatory authority. Organisations advocating for marginalised communities or challenging government policies will face heightened scrutiny simply because of their independence.

The morality trap

Perhaps the most dangerous provision is the bill's morality clause, which allows registration to be denied if an organisation’s objectives or activities are deemed to violate “public decency” or “morality”. This seemingly innocuous language masks a mechanism for majority tyranny over minority rights.

In Nepal’s bureaucratic context, where decision-making positions are predominantly occupied by high-caste Hindu men, “morality” and “public decency” become tools for enforcing majoritarian values. An organisation advocating for reproductive rights could be branded immoral. Groups working for LGBTQ+ equality might be refused registration on grounds of indecency. Dalit organisations challenging caste-based discrimination could face accusations of undermining social harmony. This directly contradicts the constitution’s commitment to inclusion and social justice, creating a legal framework for discrimination disguised as moral governance.

Financial Strangulation

The draft bill’s approach to funding reveals another layer of control. Organisations seeking foreign support must navigate a labyrinthine approval process involving three separate agencies: the registrar, the Social Welfare Division and the Ministry of Finance. This represents a significant escalation from the previous system, where the Social Welfare Council was mostly sufficient for local CSOs.

More concerning is the banking transaction ceiling set at merely Rs10,000. This amount is so restrictive that even modest community projects would trigger bureaucratic procedures. This threshold appears designed not to ensure accountability but to create administrative burdens that discourage civic engagement.

The bill further authorises registrars to order special audits at organisations’ expense based on any complaint or suspicion. Research shows that three out of four CSOs in Nepal have less than 15 staff members, and such compliance burdens constitute harassment rather than accountability. The provision echoes the 2014 Social Welfare Council directive that imposed excessive reporting requirements as an obstruction tactic before being withdrawn due to widespread criticism.

Bureaucratic multiplication

Rather than creating the “single, streamlined, and enabling legal framework” that constitutional experts recommended, the 2025 draft multiplies bureaucratic machinery. Organisations face expanded reporting obligations requiring annual submissions detailing finances, staff, beneficiaries and membership information to multiple agencies.

The bill establishes competing policy committees that reflect bureaucratic turf wars rather than coherent governance. A Director Committee under the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare will operate alongside a Policy Analysis Committee under the Ministry of Home Affairs, with overlapping mandates and divided leadership.

Geographic and functional restrictions add another layer of constraint. Organisations must specify their working areas and cannot expand without a fee and approval. They must also select from 13 predefined categories and pay additional fees to work across sectors. This rigid categorisation ignores the reality that two-thirds of Nepal’s NGOs are generalist organisations addressing multiple interconnected issues simultaneously.

The democratic stakes

This regulatory assault comes at a moment when Nepal’s civil society has repeatedly proven its democratic value. Following the devastating 2015 earthquake, CSOs mobilised relief efforts that reached communities the state could not serve. During the constitutional process, advocacy organisations ensured that marginalised voices were heard in national debates. From Dalit rights to women’s empowerment, from environmental protection to transparency advocacy, civil society has consistently advanced democratic values and social inclusion.

The 2025 draft threatens to criminalise this very capacity for independent action. By requiring permission for activities as basic as expanding geographic scope or working across issue areas, the bill transforms civic engagement from a constitutional right into a bureaucratic privilege subject to government approval.

The path forward

The solution is not complex. Civil society regulation should be minimal, transparent and focused on genuine accountability rather than control. Registration should be a notification process, not an approval mechanism. Oversight should be independent of political ministries and conducted by bodies with representation of civil society. Financial regulations should distinguish between legitimate accountability measures and bureaucratic harassment.

Most importantly, lawmakers must recognise that Article 17’s guarantee of associational freedom is not conditional on government approval of organisational missions or methods. In a constitutional democracy, the state’s role is to protect civic space, not police it.

The 2025 draft fails this basic test of democratic governance. Unless fundamentally revised, it will join the long history of authoritarian laws that substitute control for collaboration. Civil society is not the enemy of the state; it is democracy’s most reliable ally.