The right to information is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment. Recognized as a fundamental right by Nepal’s Constitution and reinforced by international human rights frameworks, it provides the public with access to government-held information. However, despite a robust legal framework, Nepal’s government agencies remain hesitant to implement this right effectively, hindering the broader objectives of good governance and participatory democracy.
Nepal’s Right to Information Act (2007) mandates all public bodies to classify, update, and disclose information regularly. The law also requires appointing Information Officers, ensuring proactive disclosure of public information, and addressing citizens’ requests promptly. The National Information Commission (NIC) was established as a regulatory body to oversee and enforce the law. Additionally, the Right to Information Implementation Monitoring Directive (2019) has set up central, provincial, and district-level monitoring committees for the same purpose.
Despite these provisions, a recent study conducted by Panchashikha Consulting Pvt Ltd for the NIC in 52 municipalities across Madhesh and Lumbini provinces revealed glaring shortcomings. While 96 percent of municipalities had appointed Information Officers, most lacked the necessary training and resources to execute their duties effectively. The report further highlighted that 75 percent of local governments failed to disclose information quarterly as mandated, and 92 percent had not submitted the required reports to regulatory bodies.
One of the major hurdles in enforcing the right to information in Nepal is the lack of institutional commitment. Many public offices designate Information Officers as a mere formality without equipping them with adequate authority or training. The study found that none of the surveyed officers had undergone formal training on the Right to Information Act.
Additionally, budget constraints severely impact implementation. The study reported that 65 percent of municipalities had not allocated any budget for right-to-information activities. Without financial backing, even well-intended legal mandates remain ineffective.
Analyzing the data at the district level, 50 percent of local levels scored between 25 and 50 points, and 40 percent fell within the 0-25 point range. Only 10 percent of local levels managed to score between 50 and 75 points. In Nawalparasi District, 71 percent of local levels scored between 25 and 50 points, with the remainder in the 0-25 range. In Rautahat District, 61 percent of local levels scored between 0 and 25 points, 33 percent between 25 and 50 points, and only six percent scored between 50 and 75 points. Siraha District had an equal distribution with 47 percent of local levels scoring between 0-25 and 25-50 points, and the remaining six percent scoring between 50-75 points.
Another concern is the exclusion of the right to information from government policies and plans. The absence of clear directives and action plans on information transparency reflects the government’s passive approach. Many municipalities have not incorporated the right to information into their annual policies, further sidelining its importance.
While the National Information Commission was created to regulate and promote the right to information, it struggles with inefficiency and political interference. The Commission lacks accurate data on the number of information requests filed annually across Nepal, making it difficult to assess compliance levels. Reports submitted to international organizations such as UNESCO remain incomplete due to the absence of systematic data collection mechanisms.
The inaction of regulatory bodies is evident in the case of Manoj Rauniyar from Parsa, who was arrested for requesting information from the District Ayurveda Office in 2020. Despite appealing to the NIC four times, he has yet to receive a response. Such instances discourage citizens from exercising their right to information, weakening the overall transparency framework.
Moreover, the monitoring committees established at various administrative levels are largely inactive. Many district-level committees have never convened meetings with Information Officers, and those that do often lack a strategic approach toward legal compliance. This administrative neglect significantly contributes to the dismal state of information disclosure in Nepal.
A major reason for the reluctance of government agencies to implement the right to information is the fear of scrutiny. Transparency exposes corruption, mismanagement, and inefficiencies within public institutions, making many officials hesitant to comply with disclosure laws. Arbitrary classification of information without stakeholder consultation has further restricted access to essential data.
The lack of protection for information seekers and whistleblowers is another factor contributing to the problem. Individuals requesting information are often harassed, threatened, or even arrested under false pretenses. Such intimidation tactics create a culture of fear, discouraging citizens from demanding government accountability.
The effectiveness of the National Information Commission has been further compromised by political appointments and bureaucratic downgrade. In the past, the NIC Secretary held a position equivalent to a government Secretary, but it has since been reduced to an Under-Secretary level. This move has significantly weakened the Commission’s authority, limiting its ability to enforce compliance and advocate for transparency.
Government agencies must ensure that Information Officers receive regular training on the Right to Information Act. Clear guidelines should be established to empower them with decision-making authority. The government must allocate sufficient financial resources for right-to-information activities. Without dedicated funding, policies remain ineffective. The NIC must be equipped with greater administrative independence and enforcement power. Upgrading its institutional status and reducing political interference will enhance its ability to regulate compliance effectively. Strict monitoring mechanisms must be introduced to ensure timely disclosure of information.
Public bodies failing to comply should face legal repercussions. Laws should be introduced to protect information seekers and whistleblowers from harassment and intimidation. Creating a secure environment for citizens to exercise their rights will encourage greater participation in governance. Implementing digital platforms for proactive information disclosure will improve accessibility. E-governance initiatives can enhance transparency and reduce bureaucratic delays. Citizens must be made aware of their right to information and how to exercise it effectively. Media and civil society organizations should actively promote awareness campaigns to empower individuals.
The right to information is not merely a legal provision but a fundamental pillar of democracy. However, Nepal’s government agencies continue to demonstrate reluctance in implementing it, limiting transparency and accountability. The existing legal framework, although strong on paper, requires committed enforcement and political will to be effective. Strengthening institutional mechanisms, providing adequate resources, and ensuring citizen protection are crucial steps toward realizing the true potential of the right to information in Nepal. Without these efforts, the promise of transparency and good governance will remain unfulfilled, and public trust in the government will continue to erode.
Tara Bahadur Bhandari is Senior Vice Chairperson at RTI Federation. Charts and data used in the article are from Panchashikha Consulting Pvt Ltd.
Comment