The Supreme Court of Nepal and Constitutionalism: Evolving Approaches, Judicial Reasoning, and the Challenges of Constitutional Interpretation

Om Prakash Singh

doi:10.36948/ijfmr.2026.v08i05.87111

The Supreme Court of Nepal and Constitutionalism: Evolving Approaches, Judicial Reasoning, and the Challenges of Constitutional Interpretation

Author(s)	Mr. Om Prakash Singh
Country	Nepal
Abstract	Constitutionalism in Nepal has evolved through successive constitutional transformations, culminating in the Constitution of Nepal, 2015, which establishes a federal democratic republican order founded upon constitutional supremacy, fundamental rights, separation of powers, judicial independence, inclusion, and the rule of law. Within this constitutional architecture, the Supreme Court of Nepal occupies a distinctive position as the final judicial authority for constitutional interpretation and the protection of constitutional rights. The creation of a specialised Constitutional Bench under Article 137 further institutionalised constitutional adjudication and reflects the increasing significance of judicial interpretation in Nepal's constitutional order. This article critically examines the evolving approaches of the Supreme Court of Nepal to constitutional interpretation and evaluates their implications for constitutionalism. It argues that the Court has progressively moved beyond a narrowly textual conception of constitutional adjudication towards purposive, rights-oriented, structural, and context-sensitive interpretation. This jurisprudential development has strengthened constitutional supremacy and expanded the practical protection of fundamental rights. At the same time, the Court's increasing constitutional role raises difficult questions concerning judicial activism, institutional competence, separation of powers, consistency of judicial reasoning, and implementation of judgments. Using a qualitative doctrinal methodology, the article analyses constitutional provisions and selected jurisprudence of the Supreme Court within the broader development of Nepalese constitutionalism. It places Nepal's constitutional experience in conversation with contemporary constitutional scholarship and comparative constitutional practice. The article contends that the central challenge for the Supreme Court is not choosing between judicial activism and restraint in absolute terms, but developing a principled methodology that reconciles constitutional fidelity, effective rights protection, democratic legitimacy, and institutional restraint. It concludes that the future consolidation of constitutionalism in Nepal depends substantially on the Court's ability to develop coherent constitutional reasoning while preserving the constitutional boundaries between judicial interpretation and democratic governance.
Keywords	Constitutionalism; Constitutional Interpretation; Supreme Court of Nepal; Constitutional Bench; Judicial Review; Fundamental Rights; Judicial Activism; Judicial Restraint; Separation of Powers; Federalism.
Published In	Volume 8, Issue 5, September-October 2026
Published On	2026-09-05
DOI	https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2026.v08i05.87111

View / Download PDF File

About IJFMR Fees & Payment Current Issue Publication Archive	Submit Research Paper Track Submission Status Publication Guidelines Publication Ethics Peer Review & Plagiarism	Join as a Reviewer Editors & Reviewers Reviewer Referral Program Get Reviewer Membership Certi.	Website/Journal Policies Usage Policy Content Policies Privacy Policy

Contact Us		+91-9687-828-838	editor@ijfmr.com

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal

The Supreme Court of Nepal and Constitutionalism: Evolving Approaches, Judicial Reasoning, and the Challenges of Constitutional Interpretation

Share this