Introduction
The Right to Food in Nepal has evolved from a moral and developmental concern into a
constitutionally guaranteed and judicially enforceable fundamental right. This
transformation is largely attributable to the proactive role of the Supreme Court of Nepal,
which has consistently interpreted the right to life and dignity to include freedom from
hunger, access to adequate nutrition, and food sovereignty. The Constitution of Nepal
(2015), under Article 36, explicitly guarantees the right to food, protection from
starvation, and food sovereignty, further strengthened by the Right to Food and Food
Sovereignty Act 2075 (2018).
Despite this strong normative framework, Nepal continues to face structural food
insecurity. Persistent malnutrition, a widening food trade deficit, climate vulnerability,
landlessness, and gender inequality expose a significant gap between legal recognition
and practical realization. This article critically analyzes the right to food in Nepal by
examining the Global Hunger Index (2025 outlook), the food trade deficit, key structural
challenges, and landmark judicial decisions that have shaped the jurisprudence of food
rights.

I. Global Hunger Index 2025 and Nutritional Status
Nepal’s progress in reducing hunger over the last two decades has been notable.
According to the Global Hunger Index (GHI), Nepal’s score declined from 37.1 in 2000
categorized as ‘very serious’ to 14.8 in 2025, placing the country in the ‘moderate’
hunger category. Regionally, Nepal has often performed better than several South Asian
neighbors including India ranking at 72nd out of 123 countries. However, these
improvements conceal stark internal inequalities.
Approximately 13 percent of Nepal’s population faces moderate to severe food
insecurity, a figure that rises dramatically to over 30 percent in Karnali Province. Nearly
18 percent of the population remains undernourished, while child malnutrition persists at
alarming levels: 36 percent of children under five are stunted, 10 percent are wasted, and
nearly half of all pregnant women suffer from anemia. These indicators reveal that
hunger in Nepal is no longer merely an issue of food availability but one of access,
nutrition, and socio-economic justice.

II. Situational Analysis: Food Trade Deficit as a Structural Crisis
Nepal’s growing dependence on food imports represents one of the most serious threats
to its food sovereignty. Nepal once largely self-sufficient in food grains during the 1980s,
the country has become heavily import-dependent. In FY 2024/25, Nepal’s agricultural
import bill reached approximately NPR 360 billion, an almost eightfold increase in
fifteen years. Food grain imports alone vastly outpaced exports, resulting in a massive
trade deficit.
This dependency is driven by structural factors, including unequal trade arrangements
with India that allow heavily subsidized agricultural products to enter Nepal duty-free.
Nepali farmers, lacking comparable subsidies, irrigation, and market access, are unable to
compete. Additionally, remittances while reducing income poverty have shifted
households away from subsistence farming toward market dependency, weakening
domestic agricultural production. This import-led food system exposes Nepal to external
shocks and undermines the constitutional promise of food sovereignty. Similarly,
emigration has exacerbated the situation with farmland remaining largely unused (bajho).

III. Structural Challenges to the Right to Food
• Climate Change and Vulnerability: Nepal is ranked 69th on the Climate Risk Index
(CRI) 2025, which assesses countries most affected by extreme weather events
between 1993 and 2022. While this reflects a decrease in relative ranking from 10th in
2021, experts argue that this does not indicate reduced vulnerability but rather
highlights data gaps in reporting damages. Climate-induced disasters - erratic rainfall,
droughts, and landslides cause annual GDP losses of 1.5 -2%, directly undermining
food availability.
• Land Fragmentation and Informal Tenure: Agricultural productivity is limited by
uneven land ownership. Approximately 29% of rural households are landless, and 25% of land holdings operate under informal tenure. Furthermore, fertile land is rapidly being converted into residential plots by commercial land-brokers.
• Gender and Social Inequality: Food insecurity is deeply gendered. "De jure" female headed households (managed by single, widowed, or divorced women) are significantly
more food-insecure than male-headed households or "de facto" FHHs (where the husband
has migrated for work and sends remittances). Despite 80% of women working in
agriculture, they own land in less than 20% of households.
• Infrastructure Gaps: In remote mountain areas, over 60% of households cannot afford
a nutritious diet. This is exacerbated by the fact that 46% of the rural population does not
live within walking distance of a functional road, leading to cereal food prices being 45%
higher in places like Karnali than the national average.

IV. Role of the Judiciary in Enforcing the Right to Food
Over the past 20 years, the Supreme Court has been able to scrutinize a significant
number of issues impacting upon the right to adequate food through employing its public
interest litigation jurisdiction. Select decisions of the Supreme Court have been reviewed
from the perspective of the right to adequate food guaranteed under international human
rights standards.

1. Madhav Kumar Basnet v. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Writ No. 3341 (S.C. 2055/06/27).
(Public Interest Litigation under Article 88(2), Constitution of Nepal 1990)
Facts
The petitioner, through a public interest litigation, brought before the Supreme Court the
issue of mass starvation prevailing in several remote and food-deficit districts of Nepal,
including Jumla, Mugu, Kalikot, Dolpa, Bajhang, Bajura, and Darchula. It was contended
that chronic food scarcity in these districts had resulted in forced migration of families
and, in extreme cases, tragic incidents where women living in extreme poverty had
poisoned their children and committed suicide. The petition highlighted the failure of the
State to ensure the basic survival needs of its citizens and sought judicial intervention to
compel the Government to supply foodstuffs to meet the minimum nutritional
requirements of the affected population.
Judicial Reasoning
The Supreme Court accepted the petition and sought written explanations from the
concerned government authorities, thereby implicitly recognizing food deprivation as a
matter connected to the protection of life and livelihood. In their submissions, the
Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health acknowledged that the State bore an
obligation to meet the basic requirements necessary for survival and livelihood. The
Ministry of Supply admitted the existence of food scarcity in the remote districts but
asserted that the Government had already supplied rice and provided transportation
subsidies to affected families.
The Court observed in general terms that the protection of life and property of the people
is the primary responsibility of the Government. However, it refrained from undertaking
an independent inquiry into the actual gravity of the starvation situation. Instead, it relied
heavily on the Government’s submissions that adequate measures were already in place
and declined to adopt an inquisitorial or supervisory approach to verify the effectiveness
of those measures.
Decision
The Supreme Court declined to issue the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner.
Accepting the Government’s assurances that food supplies were being distributed and
starvation was being addressed, the Court held that no further judicial intervention was
necessary. While the judgment is significant for its implicit recognition of the
justiciability of food rights, it reflects an adversarial and deferential approach that limited
the Court’s willingness to enforce positive state obligations in cases of mass starvation.

2. Adv. Prakash Mani Sharma v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, 2068 N.K.P. 1011 (Decision No. 8540, Writ No. 0149) (S.C. 2067/02/05).
(Public Interest Litigation under Article 107(2), Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007)
Facts
In 2008, reports of large-scale mass starvation emerged from several hill districts of midwestern and far-western Nepal. The crisis was aggravated by outbreaks of diarrhoea and
cholera, which disproportionately affected poor and malnourished populations. The
petitioners filed a public interest litigation alleging that at least twelve districts were
facing acute food scarcity due to mismanagement by the Nepal Food Corporation, failure
in transportation and storage of food grains, and the distribution of rotten and unsafe
food.
The petition asserted that food, shelter, clothing, health, education, and employment are
essential components of a dignified life. It relied on Articles 18(3) (right to foodsovereignty), 12(1) (right to live with human dignity), and 13 (right to equality) of the Interim Constitution to argue that mass starvation constituted a grave violation of fundamental rights. The petitioners sought judicial directions to ensure access to adequatefood, proper transportation and storage of food supplies, special protective measures for vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant and lactating women, and the elderly, and the constitution of an inquiry commission to investigate failures of the Nepal Food Corporation.
Judicial Reasoning
At the interim stage, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the urgency of the situation
and issued an order directing the immediate transportation and supply of food to the
affected districts, noting the impending Dashain festival and the risk of irreparable harm.
In its final judgment, the Court emphasized that the right to live with dignity is a
fundamental right and that life without food cannot be considered dignified.
The Court reasoned that the right to food sovereignty under Article 18(3) is inseparably
linked to the right to life and human dignity under Article 12(1). It observed that delayed
remedial action in cases of starvation is ineffective, likening it to “seeking medical
treatment after the death of the patient.” Importantly, the Court held that if individuals die
due to scarcity or non-supply of food, the State must bear responsibility, as the
Constitution guarantees food sovereignty and dignified life as enforceable fundamental
rights.
However, despite recognizing the gravity of the violations, the Court did not extensively
engage with the petitioners’ demands for group-specific protective measures or
institutional accountability.
Decision
The Supreme Court issued a directive order under Article 107(2) of the Interim
Constitution, directing the Government to ensure the regular and adequate supply of food
in food-deficit areas and to take timely measures to prevent starvation. The Court further
declared that any death caused by food scarcity would attract state accountability for
violation of fundamental rights.
Nevertheless, the Court declined to constitute an inquiry commission, order
compensation for victims, or mandate special protective measures for vulnerable groups.
While the judgment marked a significant advancement in recognizing the enforceability
of the right to food, it fell short of crafting comprehensive remedial mechanisms to
address systemic food insecurity.

3. Bajuddin Miya v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, 2066 N.K.P. 120 (Decision No. 8169) (S.C. 2065/11/05).
This case established the critical principle that state conservation efforts cannot override
the fundamental right to food sovereignty and survival.
Facts
Residents living near the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve filed a writ petition after
state-protected wild animals including elephants, wild buffalo, and pigs repeatedly
destroyed their crops (primarily sugarcane). The petitioners claimed damages of over Rs.
7.7 million and argued that the lack of adequate walls or barriers around the reserve
violated their right to be free from hunger. The government responded that there were no
specific laws or budgets to provide compensation for crop damage caused by wildlife.
Judicial Reasoning: The Supreme Court rejected the state’s defense, ruling that the state
cannot escape its responsibility to compensate citizens by citing a lack of policy or law.
The court interpreted Article 18(3) of the Interim Constitution (Food Sovereignty) to
mean that the state must assist in food production and marketing while creating an
environment of easy food access.
Decision
The court issued a mandamus and a directive order for the government to
permanently resolve the issue by formulating necessary laws and policies to compensate
farmers for crop damage. It established that the state must ensure food security and
storage so that no citizen is deprived of food due to state-protected environmental
factors.

4.Bhupendra Bahadur Tamang Theeng v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, 2074 N.K.P. 123 (Decision No. 9876) (S.C. 2073/09/13)
This case addressed the quality and safety aspect of the right to food, specifically during
disaster relief operations.
Facts
Following the 2015 earthquake, the World Food Programme (WFP), the Nepal
Red Cross, and Save the Children were accused of distributing stale, rotten, and
substandard rice to survivors in districts like Gorkha and Kavrepalanchowk. The
petitioner argued that eating inedible food damaged the fundamental right to life and
health.
Judicial Reasoning
The court determined that the right to food entails more than just
physical availability; food must be nutritious, free from contamination, and culturally
acceptable. It observed that none of the governmental or international organizations
involved in distribution have the right to "play with the people's life, safety, and health".
Decision
The court issued a directive order to establish laboratories at border points to
test the quality of food aid received from the international community. It also directed the
state to blacklist NGOs that work illegally or provide substandard food and mandated
the government to increase food storage capacity to mitigate risk during natural
calamities.

5.Chandesory Karmacharya v. Ashok K.C., 2068 N.K.P. 2004 (Decision No. 8731) (S.C. 2068/05/20).
This judgment highlighted the long-term sustainability of the right to food by protecting
arable land from commercial exploitation.
Facts
 Although not initially a PIL, the case involved a dispute over the commercial
plotting of land. The Supreme Court used its extraordinary jurisdiction to address a
broader national concern: the rapid conversion of fertile agricultural land into residential
plots by commercial land-brokers,.
Judicial Reasoning
 The court recognized the principle of intergenerational equity,
stating that natural resources must be used sustainably for future generations. It explicitly
linked the preservation of fertile land to food sovereignty, noting that if farmland is used
excessively for industrial or commercial purposes, the state fails to safeguard the right to
food.
Decision
The court issued a directive order for the government to design a National
Land Use Policy. This order required the state to categorize land and ensure that land
designated for agricultural purposes is strictly protected from fragmentation and
unplanned construction. This served as a precursor to the eventual mandate to protect
arable land in the 2018 Act.

6. Amrita Thapa v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Writ No. 0139 (S.C. 2065/01/04).
This case was a landmark in forcing legislative action to transform constitutional
"promises" into enforceable statutory rights.
Facts
Petitioners challenged the state's inaction in enacting the specific laws required by
the Interim Constitution to implement fundamental rights like food sovereignty, health,
and employment. Despite the Constitution being in effect for seven months, no legislative
bills had been introduced.
Judicial Reasoning
The court rejected the government’s plea that it was too busy with
the constitution-making process to draft laws. It ruled that the state cannot deprive its
citizens of their rights through simple delay. The court emphasized that ESC (Economic,
Social, and Cultural) rights are not merely discretionary but immediately enforceable
fundamental rights that cannot be set aside due to resource constraints.
Decision
The Supreme Court issued a mandamus requiring the government to enact the
necessary legislation for food, health, and employment. This judicial pressure was a
primary catalyst for the eventually drafted Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act
(2018).

Suggestions
1. Robust Implementation of Legislative Frameworks
• Enact and Enforce Regulations: While the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act
(2018) is a landmark, its implementation has been hindered by a five-year delay in
formulating essential regulations. The government must immediately establish rules to
identify food-insecure households and authorize food assistance to "priority households".
• Clarify Definitions: The legal definition of a "peasant" should be broadened to include
those with special dependency on land, ensuring that landless agricultural laborers who
work less than six months a year are not excluded from state protections.
• Accountability for Starvation: Legislation should include an explicit provision requiring
an inquiry into any deaths resulting from starvation to ensure state accountability, as
underscored by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the state is the "provider of last resort".

2. Structural Trade and Economic Reforms
• Amend the Nepal-India Trade Treaty: Experts suggest scrapping the "reciprocity"
system. Because Indian agricultural products are heavily subsidized, their low production
costs allow them to flood the Nepali market duty-free, disincentivizing domestic farmers.
• Incentivize Domestic Production: Nepal should reorient its policy toward "invest in
what you consume" to curb the staggering Rs 47.7 billion grain trade deficit observed in
early FY 2024/25.
• Manage Remittance Dependency: While remittances contribute 26.6% to the GDP, they
have shifted practices toward market dependency. Policies should encourage using
remittance income for productive agricultural assets rather than just consumption.

3. Promoting Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Agriculture
• Expand Community Seed Banks (CSBs): To reduce dependence on expensive, disease susceptible hybrid seeds, Nepal should scale models like the Pingdanda CSB, which has
conserved 117 climate-resilient local crop varieties. Local seeds require fewer chemical
inputs and better withstand the erratic rainfall and droughts caused by climate change.
• Protect Arable Land: The state must strictly enforce the National Land Use Policy to
stop the conversion of fertile farmland into residential plots for commercial plotting, a
practice the judiciary warns compromises long-term food sovereignty.
• Improve Productivity through Tenure Security: With 29% of rural households being
landless, the government should prioritize providing landless Dalits and indigenous
groups with secure land tenure, as land ownership is a fundamental driver of food
security.

4. Targeted Support for Vulnerable Groups
• Support for "De Jure" Female-Headed Households: Research indicates that households
managed by single, widowed, or divorced women are significantly more food-insecure
than male-headed households. Policies must target these women specifically with
subsidies to fill the asset gap and training for market access.
• Nutrition for Pregnant and Lactating Women: Legal and programmatic gaps in
providing direct nutritional support to pregnant and lactating women must be filled to
address high rates of maternal anemia and child stunting (36%).
• Home-Grown School Feeding: Expanding school meal programs to 3.5 million children
using a home-grown model can create a reliable market for local smallholder farmers
while improving child nutrition.

5. Infrastructure and Monitoring Enhancements
• Improve Remote Access: In regions like the Karnali mountain districts, food prices are
45% higher than the national average due to low road density and high travel times.
Investment in functional roads and post-harvest storage facilities is critical to reducing
these "imported" costs.
• Establish Testing Laboratories: Following judicial directives, the state should build
laboratories at border points to test the quality of imported food and international food
aid, ensuring that victims of natural disasters are not provided with stale or substandard
rice.
• Strengthen Monitoring Systems: The Nepal Food Security Monitoring System
(NeKSAP) should be institutionalized across all 753 municipalities to provide impact based forecasting and timely responses to localized crop failures.

6. Monetary and Inflation Management
• Anchor Expectations: Since inflation in Nepal is substantially imported and influenced
by Indian inflation, the central bank should use the policy rate as a rule-based tool to
anchor real interest rates and expectations.
• Manage External Shocks: Policies must be designed to withstand global commodity
price shocks (e.g., fuel and fertilizer) that dominate short-run price behavior in Nepal’s
pegged economy.

Conclusion
Nepal’s right to food jurisprudence represents a powerful example of judicial activism in
advancing socio-economic rights. However, legal recognition alone is insufficient.
Persistent malnutrition, trade dependency, and inequality reveal a profound
implementation gap. Bridging this divide requires structural reform, political will, and
sustained judicial oversight. The right to food, as affirmed by Nepal’s Supreme Court, is
not merely aspirational, it is a binding constitutional obligation essential to human dignity
and social justice.