Controversies Surrounding Citizenship in Nepal

Constitution Study #4: Citizenship laws v/s identity

Nepal has a history of intense discussions regarding citizenship that extend beyond legal matters. Controversies around citizenship in Nepal arise from nationalism, identity, political authority, and state governance. Despite significant discord among political factions, civil society, and the general populace, the debates over citizenship persisted even after the adoption of the Constitution of Nepal in 2015. For some, citizenship represents state sovereignty and demographic stability, while for others, it is fundamentally linked to inclusion and dignity.

1. Constitutional Provisions and the Core Tension

Part 2 of the Constitution of Nepal (Articles 10 to 15) outlines the provisions of citizenship. Article 10 guarantees that:

No Nepali shall be deprived of the right to acquire citizenship.

But it is immediately limited by laws that dictate how and under what conditions citizenship can be granted (Article 11). The Constitution introduces different categories: citizenship by descent, by birth, and by naturalization. The provisions, especially related to descent and naturalization, have generated criticism due to perceived gender discrimination and restrictive language.

For instance, Article 11(2)(b) provides citizenship by descent to children of a Nepali father or mother. Also, Article 11(5) ensures that:

A person who is born in Nepal to a woman who is a citizen of Nepal and has resided in Nepal and whose father is not traced shall be provided with the citizenship of Nepal by descent.

The authority can still scrutinise and deny the mother’s claim for an absentee father can. However, the Article’s condition is even more fatal since it quickly sets a condition a person born to a Nepali mother and a foreign father may acquire naturalized citizenship. This has raised serious concerns about the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

2. Citizenship Amendment Bill: Stalled and Contested

In recent years, the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act further fuelled controversy. Between 2018 and 2022, several versions of the Citizenship Amendment Bill were introduced and ultimately passed by the Parliament in July 2022. However, President Bidya Devi Bhandari rejected it.

President Bhandari’s decision was praised by some as protective of national sovereignty, while others condemned it as overstepping her ceremonial role. The drama and controversies around Citizenship Amendment Bill continued further when Bhandari’s successor Ram Chandra Poudel authenticated the dormant bill. The opposition again criticised the President’s move, for it was unconstitutional.

3. Sociopolitical Dimensions: Inclusion vs. Protectionism

Citizenship laws in Nepal are deeply intertwined with identity politics. Madhesi communities, in particular, have long faced difficulties in acquiring citizenship, often being viewed with suspicion due to their geographic and cultural proximity to India. Women, too, have faced systemic discrimination through the paternal bias in citizenship laws.

At the heart of the debate lies the fear of demographic change and political manipulation. Opponents of liberal citizenship policies argue that leniency could lead to mass naturalization of people from across the border, altering Nepal’s demographic and political balance. Proponents argue that citizenship should be inclusive, recognizing Nepal’s diversity and ensuring fundamental rights for all.

Then there are controversies around the Non-Residential Nepali (NRN) citizenship. Article 14 of the Constitution paves way to provide citizenship to NRNs living outside the SAARC nations. However, despite frequent lobbying, the NRNs only have “economic, social and cultural rights”. This means they can’t vote or have any political say. Lobbyists for NRN citizenship claim that allowing them political rights will make Nepal more inclusive.

4. Judicial Interpretations and International Norms

Nepali courts have offered mixed responses on citizenship cases. In some cases, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for equal citizenship rights for men and women in line with Article 18 and Nepal’s international obligations.

However, other decisions have deferred to the government’s interpretation of laws based on “sovereignty” and “national security” clauses in the Constitution (Article 289).

Internationally, Nepal’s citizenship laws have faced scrutiny for breaching obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), particularly on the rights of women and children. The emphasis on patrilineal lineage, increasingly seen as outdated and contrary to global human rights standards, still lingers.

5. What Lies Ahead?

Nepal’s citizenship debate is far from resolved. As political coalitions shift and constitutional interpretations evolve, the core tension of balancing national security and demographic concerns with individual rights and inclusion remains.

The path forward requires:

• Amending discriminatory provisions in both the Constitution and citizenship laws.
• Clear and gender-just procedures for granting citizenship.
• A broader national dialogue that prioritizes human dignity alongside state integrity.

According to the Economic Survey 2080/81 (MoF), as of 2080 BS, only 63.4% of eligible Nepali citizens had received their National Identity Number. Similarly, 74% of children under five had been registered at birth. These figures suggest significant gaps in legal identity documentation, which affects citizenship recognition and access to public services.

The Sixteenth Plan (2024/25–2028/29) explicitly targets increasing national ID coverage to 90% and universal birth registration by 2028/29, recognizing the role of identity documents in governance and social justice (Sixteenth Plan, Chapter 1.6.1).

In the end, the question is not only “Who belongs to Nepal?” but also “What kind of Nepal do we envision?” One that is secure and exclusive, or one that is just and inclusive. We need to solve the controversies around citizenship to ensure the most basic of dignified living in Nepal.