Hierarchy of Courts in Nepal (2026): Court Structure

Nepal's court system is a three-tier judicial structure established by Part 11 of the Constitution of Nepal 2072 (2015) and given operational shape by the Administration of Justice Act 2073 (2016). At the apex sits one Supreme Court at Kathmandu; below it sit seven High Courts — one for each of the seven federal provinces; and at the base sit seventy-seven District Courts, one in each district. Outside this three-tier line, the Constitution permits specialised tribunals under Article 152 to handle revenue, labour, administrative, foreign-employment, debt-recovery, insurance, cooperative and similar subject-matter disputes. At the bottom layer, the Local Government Operation Act 2074 gives judicial committees at municipal and rural-municipal level a limited dispute-resolution role. See Alpine's civil-law practice area for related matters.

This 2026 (2083 BS) pillar guide explains how the hierarchy works in practice: the constitutional foundation in Part 11 of the Constitution 2072 and Articles 126 through 138; the four-bench composition of the Supreme Court — Constitutional Bench under Article 137, Full Bench, Division Bench and Single Bench; the role of the seven High Courts as the principal appellate forum and the holder of writ jurisdiction under Article 144; the original-jurisdiction work of the seventy-seven District Courts under the National Civil Procedure Code 2074 and the National Criminal Procedure Code 2074; the specialised-tribunal track for subject-matter cases; the writ powers under Article 133; the appointment of judges through the Judicial Council under Article 153; and the appeal chain a litigant follows from a first-instance filing through to a Constitutional Bench hearing.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered litigation team handling matters across all three court tiers — original filings at the District Courts, appeals at the seven High Courts and writs, appeals and Constitutional Bench arguments at the Supreme Court.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is the constitutional foundation of the court hierarchy in Nepal?

The court hierarchy in Nepal is founded on Part 11 of the Constitution of Nepal 2072 (2015), running from Article 126 through Article 156. Article 126 vests the judicial power of Nepal in the courts and other judicial bodies as provided by the Constitution and law. Article 127 establishes the three principal court tiers — Supreme Court, High Courts and District Courts — and authorises the law to establish other courts and tribunals. The Administration of Justice Act 2073 (2016) is the principal operational statute giving structural form to the High Courts and the District Courts, defining their seats, territorial jurisdiction and the matters they hear at first instance and on appeal.

The framework rests on three foundational ideas. First, the judiciary is a co-ordinate branch independent of the executive and the legislature; Article 128 expressly guarantees judicial independence. Second, the system is hierarchical — decisions of subordinate courts are appealable to superior courts, and the Supreme Court sits at the apex with binding effect on all courts. Third, the system is unified — the same hierarchy serves civil, criminal, commercial, family and constitutional matters, with specialised tribunals carved out only where subject-matter expertise justifies a separate forum.

What is the role of the Supreme Court of Nepal?

The Supreme Court is the apex court of Nepal, established under Article 128 of the Constitution. It sits in Kathmandu and exercises jurisdiction over the entire territory of Nepal. The Court is composed of the Chief Justice and a maximum of twenty other judges, all of whom serve until the retirement age of sixty-five. The Court hears matters in four bench configurations — Constitutional Bench, Full Bench, Division Bench and Single Bench — depending on the nature and constitutional weight of the question.

The Constitutional Bench under Article 137 is a five-judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice that hears disputes about the interpretation of the Constitution; disputes between the federal, provincial and local governments; matters relating to the election of the President, Vice-President and members of Parliament; and any matter referred to it by a Division Bench involving a serious question of constitutional law. The Full Bench is typically composed of three or more judges (other than the Constitutional Bench) and hears appeals raising matters of principle or where the Court is being asked to depart from earlier precedent. The Division Bench is composed of two judges and hears the bulk of the Court's substantive appellate work. The Single Bench, composed of one judge, handles routine matters, leave applications, interim orders and procedural rulings.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction spans four heads. Original jurisdiction — primarily the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 133. Appellate jurisdiction — over decisions of the seven High Courts and certain specialised tribunals. Advisory jurisdiction — the President may seek the Court's opinion on a question of law of public importance. Supervisory jurisdiction — the Court supervises and inspects all subordinate courts and tribunals and lays down their procedures through court rules.

What is the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 133?

Article 133 of the Constitution confers extraordinary writ jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. The Court may, on the application of any concerned person or on its own motion, issue orders necessary for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose where no other remedy is provided or the remedy provided is inadequate or ineffective. The Court may issue habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto or any other appropriate order. Article 133 also gives the Court the power to declare void any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution — the power of judicial review. The dedicated writ procedure in Nepal guide walks through the petition, filing and hearing process for each writ.

Writ jurisdiction is fast-track jurisdiction — habeas corpus petitions are heard on priority because they concern personal liberty, and constitutional matters are listed promptly because they affect public order and rights. The Supreme Court is the only court that can declare a primary federal statute unconstitutional; the seven High Courts can declare provincial law inconsistent with the Constitution or with federal law within their territorial jurisdiction, but the federal statute review power sits exclusively with the Supreme Court.

What is the role of the High Courts in Nepal?

The seven High Courts are the intermediate tier of the Nepal court hierarchy. They were created under the Administration of Justice Act 2073 (2016) to replace the older Appellate Courts that operated under the 1990 Constitution. There is one High Court for each of the seven federal provinces — Koshi (formerly Province 1), Madhesh (Province 2), Bagmati (Province 3), Gandaki (Province 4), Lumbini (Province 5), Karnali (Province 6) and Sudurpaschim (Province 7). Each High Court has a principal seat at the provincial headquarters and may sit at additional benches within the province as determined by the Chief Justice of Nepal in consultation with the Chief Judge of the High Court.

The High Courts exercise three heads of jurisdiction. First, appellate jurisdiction — they hear appeals from District Courts and from certain specialised tribunals within their territorial reach. Second, writ jurisdiction — Article 144 of the Constitution confers on each High Court the same five classical writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto) within its territorial limits, exercisable on the application of any concerned person. Third, limited original jurisdiction — the AJA 2073 gives High Courts first-instance jurisdiction over certain serious felonies (including some categories of murder and serious offences against the state) and over revisional matters from District Courts.

High Court benches typically sit as Division Benches (two judges) for substantive appellate and writ work and as Single Benches for interim relief, leave applications and procedural matters. A Full Bench of three or more judges may be constituted for matters of principle or where the Court is being asked to depart from settled provincial precedent.

What is the role of District Courts in Nepal?

The seventy-seven District Courts are the base of the court hierarchy and the principal forum for original-jurisdiction work. There is one District Court in each of Nepal's seventy-seven districts, each serving as the first-instance forum for the bulk of civil, criminal, family, commercial, property and contractual disputes that fall within its territorial limits. The District Courts are established under the AJA 2073, and their procedure is governed primarily by the National Civil Procedure Code 2074 (Muluki Deewani Karyabidhi Sanhita) and the National Criminal Procedure Code 2074 (Muluki Faujdari Karyabidhi Sanhita).

The District Court's territorial jurisdiction is the district. Civil suits are filed where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose; immovable-property suits are filed where the property is located; criminal matters are filed where the offence was committed. Each District Court is composed of one or more District Judges, appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Council. The Chief District Judge supervises the registry and assigns matters within the Court. The filing-a-case in Nepal guide explains the practical mechanics of opening a District Court file.

District Court decisions are appealable to the High Court of the relevant province. Time for appeal is typically thirty-five days from the date of the order in civil matters and varies for criminal matters depending on the nature of the offence and the relief sought. The full appeal-chain mechanics are covered in the legal procedure in Nepal guide.

What are the specialised tribunals in Nepal?

Article 152 of the Constitution authorises Parliament to establish specialised courts, judicial bodies or tribunals to handle particular subject-matter disputes that require sector expertise. These tribunals operate outside the three-tier general-court hierarchy but their decisions are subject to the supervisory and writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The principal specialised tribunals operating in Nepal in 2026 include:

• Revenue Tribunal — under the Revenue Tribunal Act 2031, hears tax disputes from the Inland Revenue Department; sits at Kathmandu with regional benches.
• Labour Court — under the Labour Act 2074, hears employment disputes including dismissal, wage and benefit claims; appeal lies to the Supreme Court.
• Foreign Employment Tribunal — under the Foreign Employment Act 2064, hears disputes between Nepali migrant workers and recruitment agencies.
• Administrative Court — under the Administrative Court Act 2076, hears appeals against decisions of civil-service authorities affecting government employees.
• Debt Recovery Tribunal — under the Banks and Financial Institutions Debt Recovery Act 2058, hears bank loan recovery matters above the statutory threshold.
• Special Court — under the Special Court Act 2059, hears graft, corruption and money-laundering cases; appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court.
• Insurance Tribunal — under the Insurance Act 2079, hears disputes between policyholders and insurers above the statutory threshold.
• Cooperative Tribunal — under the Cooperative Act 2074, hears disputes within and between registered cooperatives.

Each tribunal has its own procedural rules and composition, typically combining a judicial chair with subject-matter expert members. Appeals from most tribunals lie to the Supreme Court directly, bypassing the High Court — recognising that the subject-matter expertise has already been applied at the tribunal level and a generalist High Court would add little. The Special Court is a notable example: graft cases filed by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority are heard by the Special Court at first instance, with appeal lying to the Supreme Court.

What is the role of judicial committees at the local level?

The Local Government Operation Act 2074 (2017) gives every rural municipality and municipality a judicial committee — a three-member committee chaired by the deputy mayor (or vice-chair of the rural municipality) and including two members appointed by the local assembly. The judicial committee has limited civil dispute-resolution jurisdiction over a defined list of small-value, neighbourhood-level disputes including boundary disputes between adjoining landholders, common-water disputes, footpath and right-of-way disputes, and minor business and consumer disputes within the local jurisdiction.

Decisions of the judicial committee are appealable to the District Court of the relevant district. The committee is not a court within the meaning of Article 127 of the Constitution — it is a quasi-judicial body operating at the local-government level, with mediation as its principal mode of dispute resolution. The committee cannot try criminal matters and cannot hear disputes outside the statutory list. Where parties cannot agree to a mediated outcome, the committee may render a decision; that decision is binding but reviewable on appeal at the District Court.

How are judges appointed in Nepal?

Judge appointment runs through two constitutional councils. The Chief Justice and the other Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council under Article 284. The Constitutional Council is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes the Chief Justice, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairperson of the National Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, and the Deputy Speaker. The Council's recommendation is then subject to parliamentary hearing before the President's appointment is finalised.

High Court and District Court judges are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Council under Article 153. The Judicial Council is chaired by the Chief Justice and includes the Minister of Law and Justice, the senior-most Supreme Court judge, two persons (including one law expert) nominated by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and the Attorney General. The Council assesses candidates against criteria laid down in the AJA 2073 — typically a minimum number of years of legal practice or judicial service for District Judge candidates, and longer experience for High Court Judge candidates. Promotion from District Court to High Court and from High Court to Supreme Court is the common career path for sitting judges, but the Council may also appoint directly from senior practice and from academic or government legal service.

What are the different bench configurations of the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court sits in four bench configurations, each suited to a different category of work. The Single Bench (one judge) handles administrative listings, leave applications, interim orders, ex parte motions, procedural rulings and small-value reviews where a single judicial mind is sufficient. The Division Bench (two judges) is the workhorse of the Court — most substantive appellate work, writ petitions of ordinary constitutional weight, and reviews from High Court decisions are heard at this level.

The Full Bench (three or more judges other than the Constitutional Bench) is constituted when a Division Bench refers a matter that involves a question of law of general public importance or where the Court is being asked to depart from earlier Supreme Court precedent. The Full Bench's decision binds future Division Benches on the question of law decided. The Constitutional Bench (five judges, presided over by the Chief Justice) is constituted under Article 137 to decide constitutional questions — interpretation of the Constitution, disputes between governments at federal-provincial-local level, election disputes for the President and the Vice-President, and matters referred from a Division Bench involving a serious constitutional question. A Constitutional Bench decision is binding on the entire Court and on all subordinate courts.

What is the practical appeal chain a litigant follows?

A typical civil litigant begins at the District Court of the district where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose. The plaint is filed in Nepali language with the prescribed court fee. The District Court conducts a trial — pleadings, framing of issues, evidence, hearing, judgment. The losing party may appeal to the High Court of the province within thirty-five days of the judgment under the National Civil Procedure Code 2074. The High Court hears the first appeal as of right on questions of fact and law. The losing party at the High Court may file a further appeal to the Supreme Court, but typically only on questions of law or where the matter falls within the second-appeal grounds laid down in the AJA 2073.

For criminal matters, the chain runs similarly. Petty and ordinary offences are filed and tried at the District Court. Serious offences over which the High Court has first-instance jurisdiction (including some categories of murder and offences against the state) are filed directly at the High Court. Appeals from District Court convictions lie to the High Court; appeals from High Court first-instance convictions lie to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's review power on criminal convictions is broad — it can re-examine sentencing, conviction, and the application of law. Detailed mechanics of the criminal process are at muluki civil and criminal procedure code nepal.

Writ proceedings short-circuit the appeal chain. A petitioner alleging violation of a fundamental right or seeking to challenge an act of a public authority can file directly at the High Court under Article 144 or at the Supreme Court under Article 133. The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary — it does not displace ordinary remedies where they are adequate, but it is the only forum for matters that cannot be resolved through the standard appeal chain.

How is the Supreme Court's writ power different from the High Court's writ power?

Both courts hold the same five classical writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto — but the powers differ in three ways. First, territorial reach: the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction extends to the entire territory of Nepal; each High Court's jurisdiction extends only within the geographic limits of its province. Second, against whom: the Supreme Court can issue writs against the federal government, the provincial governments, the local governments and any public authority across Nepal; a High Court can issue writs against authorities operating within its province (and against the federal government in matters arising within the province). Third, judicial review: only the Supreme Court can declare a federal statute void for inconsistency with the Constitution; the High Court can declare provincial law inconsistent with the Constitution or with federal law within its territorial reach.

Practically, a petitioner with a choice will often file at the High Court if the matter is squarely a provincial or local-authority issue — faster listing, closer to the parties, and a Division Bench hearing without the wait for a Supreme Court listing. The Supreme Court is the right forum for federal-government action, for matters of national constitutional importance, and for cases where the underlying statute is alleged to be unconstitutional.

What is the independence of the judiciary in Nepal?

Article 128 of the Constitution guarantees judicial independence. The guarantee operates through several mechanisms. Security of tenure — judges serve until the retirement age of sixty-five and may be removed only through impeachment by Parliament on grounds of incompetence, misbehaviour or failure to perform duties. Financial autonomy — the salaries and allowances of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of Nepal and are not subject to annual budget vote. Administrative autonomy — the Supreme Court runs its own administrative apparatus through the Office of the Registrar General, and judges are not subject to executive direction. Procedural autonomy — the Supreme Court frames its own rules of procedure under Article 132, and the AJA 2073 confers similar rule-making powers for the High Courts and District Courts.

Judicial Council oversight provides the disciplinary mechanism. Complaints against High Court and District Court judges are investigated by the Judicial Council under Article 153, which may recommend removal, suspension or other action to the President. The combined framework is intended to insulate judges from political pressure while preserving accountability through institutional discipline rather than executive control.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with court matters across all three tiers?

Alpine Law Associates is a full-service law firm in Nepal with a litigation team that handles matters across all three court tiers and the specialised tribunals. At the District Court level, we file civil suits — contract, property, family, succession, tort — and represent defendants on the receiving side of suits. We handle criminal matters at the District Court, prosecution-side advisory and defence-side representation, from FIR registration through to judgment. At the High Court level, we run first appeals from District Court judgments, original-jurisdiction felony matters, and writ petitions under Article 144 challenging acts of provincial and local authorities.

At the Supreme Court level, we handle final appeals on questions of law, writ petitions under Article 133 against federal-government action, and constitutional matters that reach Division Bench, Full Bench and Constitutional Bench hearings. We also represent clients before the specialised tribunals — Revenue Tribunal for tax disputes, Labour Court for employment matters, Foreign Employment Tribunal for migrant-worker cases, Administrative Court for civil-service appeals, Debt Recovery Tribunal for bank-loan matters, and Special Court for graft and money-laundering defence. Our coordinated approach lets a client move smoothly between tiers — a District Court file that needs urgent interim relief gets a parallel writ petition at the High Court; a High Court appeal that turns on a constitutional question is prepared for Supreme Court referral from the start.

For clients planning litigation, we run an early case assessment — likely forum, likely cost, realistic timeline, evidence requirements and the procedural strategy for each tier. For clients already in litigation, we step in at any stage with capacity to handle complex multi-tier coordination. As a Nepal Bar Council-registered firm with bench experience across all seven High Court provinces, we bring local knowledge of provincial-court practice as well as Supreme Court advocacy.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026