As Nepal moves forward with plans to dissolve the National Child Rights Council, a growing coalition of child rights advocates, civil society organisations and lawmakers is urging the government to reverse course, warning that the decision could weaken protections for millions of children and place Nepal at odds with its international obligations.

The proposed dissolution, announced in the government’s fiscal year 2083-84 budget as part of a broader plan to abolish, merge or restructure 31 government entities, has sparked criticism from child rights organisations nationwide. Critics argue that eliminating the council, which serves as the statutory body responsible for coordinating and promoting children’s rights in Nepal, would create a vacuum at a time when the country continues to battle with child labour, trafficking, child marriage and violence against children.

Established under the Children Act of 2018, the National Child Rights Council serves as Nepal’s primary institution dedicated exclusively to children’s rights. The council coordinates child protection policies across all levels of government, monitors rights violations, oversees child protection mechanisms, supports child participation initiatives, and helps Nepal fulfill its reporting obligations under international human rights treaties.

Ram Bahadur Chand, information officer at the National Child Rights Council, said the council’s elimination would leave critical child protection functions without a dedicated national coordinating body.

According to Chand, the council currently works in 17 districts and coordinates services related to child trafficking, counseling, alternative care, and support for abused and abandoned children. He said the council also oversees a network of 382 child-care shelters serving more than 10,000 children nationwide.

“The children need to be protected,” Chand said. “We are what is protecting them for now.”

The controversy has now reached an international stage.

On May 31, Shree Ram Adhikari, a former human rights officer with the United Nations Mission in South Sudan and a former fellow at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights in Geneva, submitted an urgent appeal to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, requesting intervention over the government’s decision.

“The proposed dissolution threatens decades of progress in child rights governance in Nepal,” Adhikari wrote in the appeal. “At a time when children continue to face challenges related to violence, exploitation, child labour, child marriage, trafficking, online abuse, climate vulnerability, and unequal access to services, weakening the country’s principal child rights institution would be contrary to the best interests of children and Nepal's international commitments.”

The government’s decision comes as Nepal prepares for an upcoming review before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The committee previously adopted a list of issues from Nepal in April and requested written responses by October 15. Among the questions posed to Nepal is how the government plans to strengthen the staffing and organising role of the National Child Rights Council.

“In this context, dissolution of the NCRC will backfire on the government during the hearing of the State Party report in the committee,” Adhikari said.

The appeal argues that dissolving the council may conflict with Nepal’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Nepal ratified in 1990. Under Article 4 of the convention, states are required to undertake legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement children’s rights.

“The existence of a specialised institution responsible for coordinating, promoting, monitoring, and protecting children’s rights is, therefore, not a policy choice but an international obligation arising from the CRC,” Adhikari said. “Dissolving the NCRC without establishing an equally effective and independent replacement mechanism would be inconsistent with Nepal’s commitments under the Convention.”

Asked about the issue, Rinchen Chophel, a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, declined to comment.

“This is a subject matter issue I won’t be able to discuss, particularly at this very crucial stage when the Ministry is in active discussion with the relevant authorities,” Chophel told the Post.

Critics have also questioned the process that led to the proposal.

The recommendation to abolish the NCRC originated from a government task force charged with reviewing public institutions. The task force, organised by Kiran Sharma, secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, recommended dissolving the NCRC alongside 30 other government entities. The Nepali government, however, has not publicly provided a detailed explanation for its recommendation to abolish the council.

The decision has generated criticism from multiple civil society organisations, including the Federation of Democratic NGOs Nepal, the NGO Federation of Nepal, Girls Not Brides Nepal, Consortium Nepal, and the Children as Zones of Peace National Campaign.

While many of the groups acknowledged that reforms may be needed, they argued that abolition is the wrong approach.

“There may be some weaknesses, areas for improvement, and structural challenges in the Council’s performance,” the Children as Zones of Peace National Campaign wrote in a statement. “However, the alternative to reform cannot be institutional abolition. Instead, the Council should be made more effective and empowered with resources, means, human resources, and authority.”

Anil Raghuvanshi, founder of ChildSafeNet, which works to combat online sexual exploitation and abuse of children, echoed that sentiment.

“Before, the budget for the NCRC was not enough and it wasn't working properly,” Raghuvanshi told the Post. “But if the NCRC were to be shut down, who is going to do the work? We shouldn’t get rid of it, but we should have something better ready already.”

He added that he believes the government’s decision sends the wrong signal about national priorities. “The government is treating this like it is not worth the expense,” Raghuvanshi said. “This feels backwards. Weakening Nepal’s child protection system at this time would be a step in the wrong direction.”

Several organisations emphasised the council’s role in operating child protection systems that often remain invisible to the public.

Girls Not Brides Nepal noted that the council helps oversee Child Helpline 1098, manages rescues and reunifications of missing children, monitors children’s homes, and provides support to children exposed to violence or experiencing homelessness.

Others warned that dissolving the council would weaken coordination between Nepal’s federal, provincial, and local governments on child protection issues.

The NGO Federation of Nepal described the move as “a dangerous sign of the state trying to retreat from its constitutional, legal, and international obligations.”

Adhikari also pointed to what he sees as a contradiction within the government's own budget.

“Children cannot organise themselves to demand their rights, and they are not the voters of our country,” Adhikari wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Balendra Shah. “Therefore, the state needs to preserve a special structure like the council to make their voices heard.”

Opposition has also emerged inside Parliament as Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker Indira Rana Magar criticised the decision during a House of Representatives session on May 21, calling for the government to immediately reconsider the move. She noted that child rights, welfare, and protection are highly sensitive issues and said dissolving the institution without establishing a clear alternative mechanism is inappropriate.