As plastic pollution continues to rise globally, the world once again rallies behind the call to “End Plastic Pollution”—the theme of World Environment Day 2025, echoing the same message from 2018. Despite growing awareness and legal measures, Nepal’s progress on curbing plastic pollution remains slow and inconsistent.
In this context, it bears relevance to shade light on the one of the studies, entitled “Solid Waste Account for Urban Municipalities of Nepal, 2020”, published by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
The report of the CBS suggests that one million metric tons of waste is being generated across the country annually. Surprisingly, of one million metric tons of waste, around three million (3.15) tons are disposed-off along the river banks and in open areas, thereby, causing rampant water pollution. The report further states that about 30 percent of non-combustible waste is in the nature of plastic and rubber.
Similarly, Waste Management Baseline Survey of Nepal, 2020 conducted by the CBS also reveals the fact that only 42 percent of the municipalities are using the landfill sites. The remaining local bodies in the country don’t have landfill sites.
If the global data is something to standby, the studies of UNEP suggest that the world produces more than 430 million of tons of plastic annually and two third of them are short-lived product and that soon becomes waste, filling the ocean and get into human food-chain.
The plastic pollution has augmented in such a level that it became the agenda of Sustainable development goals (SDG) too. The Goal number 11 of SDG obliges the state parties to make cities and human settlement inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Likewise, the goal number 13 of the SDG obligates the states to take urgent measures to combat climate change.
These instances give a vivid picture that the states across the globe are confronting with the menace of plastic pollution.
In a significant step toward combating plastic pollution, the Supreme Court of Nepal has issued landmark verdicts directing the state to develop robust mechanisms against it. As we observe World Environment Day today, it is especially important to reflect on these rulings and their impact.
Two decades of delay
Over 20 years ago, Nepal’s Supreme Court took a decisive step in the fight against plastic pollution. In a landmark 2001 ruling (Advocate Santosh Kumar Mahto v. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Others, Decision No. 7430), the Court recognized the authority of local governments to regulate and ban plastic bags to protect the natural environment and public health.
The petition and the court’s mandate
The petitioner Advocate Santosh Kumar Mahto highlighted serious concerns: plastic bags made from petroleum are non-renewable, non-biodegradable, and remain in the environment for centuries—polluting soil and water, and threatening both aquatic and land-based life. Furthermore, food stored in black plastic bags could expose people to harmful chemicals that may lead to skin diseases and cancer.
The Court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the government to form a technical committee. This committee would include experts from the Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (RONAST), Tribhuvan University, the Ministry of Environment, Kathmandu Valley municipalities, and the Nepal Plastic Manufacturers Association. It was tasked with conducting research and recommending actions to reduce plastic pollution.
More so, based on the committee’s findings, the Court ordered the Kathmandu Valley municipalities to act on banning the sale and use of plastic bags.
Ignored directives, worsening pollution
Despite this strong judicial directive, little has been changed.
Over two decades later, Kathmandu remains one of the most polluted cities in the world. Successive governments have issued regulations, such as a 2000 ban on plastic bags thinner than 20 microns, and a 2015 ban on bags thinner than 40 microns in Kathmandu Valley—but implementation has been weak.
In fact, in 2018, the Ministry of Forests and Environment weakened the existing ban, proposing regulation only for bags under 30 microns, contradicting earlier commitments and court directives.
In a 2023 case (Bharat Basnet v. Ministry of Forest and Environment and Others, Decision No. 11015), the Supreme Court criticized this move as regressive, emphasizing that environmental protection should never be compromised. The Court invoked the “In Dubio Pro Natura” principle—when in doubt, act in favor of nature—and urged the government to maintain the stricter 40-micron threshold.
Given that the original ban was placed on plastic bags of less than 40 microns and specifically targeted at environmental protection and public health within the Kathmandu Valley, the revised provision to regulate only bags below 30 microns represents a regressive step in environmental conservation, held the Court.
Regressive step
The Government of Nepal published a notice in the Nepal Gazette on 2071/12/18 BS. (April 1, 2015 AD), banning the import, storage, sale, distribution, and use of plastic bags of size 20 x 35 cm and thickness less than 40 microns within the Kathmandu Valley, beginning from 2072/01/01 BS (April 14, 2015 AD).
However, contrary to this, the decision made by the Ministry of Forests and Environment (at the ministerial level) on 2075/02/23 BS (June 6, 2018 AD) and the subsequent publication of the “Nepal Clean Environment Mega Campaign (2075)” action plan (on page 14 of the document) mentions a provision to regulate and control plastic bags with thickness less than 30 microns and promote alternatives for other bags.
The Supreme Court termed such a move of the government as regressive in 2023 judgment, i.e., in Bharat Basnet v. Ministry of Forest and Environment and Others [Decision No. 11015].
Repeated court warnings
This isn’t an isolated case (that is, the case of 2023).
In 2004, in Advocate Bhojraj Aire v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers and Others, the Court again warned that pollution in the Kathmandu Valley was worsening and violating citizens’ constitutional/fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment.
Even earlier, in 1995, the Court ruled in Prof. Surya Prasad Sharma Dhungel v. Godavari Marbles that a polluted environment endangers human life and violates the right to physical well-being.
Pattern of inaction
Despite consistent court judgments and legal frameworks, Nepal’s fight against plastic pollution has suffered from one major flaw: lack of law enforcement.
As Jurist H.L.A. Hart once noted, enacting a law is one thing; implementing it is another. This gap between policy and practice undermines public trust and environmental justice.
In a democracy, ignoring the decisions of the Supreme Court is unacceptable. Under the public trust doctrine, the government is the guardian of people in the context of using the natural resources for the benefit of all citizens. By failing to enforce its own laws and court orders, the state is neglecting its duty.
Way forward
If Nepal is serious about “ending plastic pollution,” as the world urges this World Environment Day, it must bridge the gap between promise and performance. Laws are already in place. Judicial clarity has been provided. What’s missing is the political will to act.
If this situation persists, the theme of this year’s World Environment Day will remain just that—a theme, not a reality.
Jivesh Jha and Khagendra Tiwari are Judicial Officers at the Morang District Court. In addition to their judicial roles, they also serve as law faculty at a public university based in Biratnagar, contributing to legal education and academic discourse.
Comment