Surrogacy Laws in Nepal 2082/83 (2026) — Legal Status

No. Foreign nationals, single persons and same-sex couples are barred. The 2014 opening for foreigners was reversed in 2015 and has not reopened.

No enacted Surrogacy Act exists. The ban and the narrow altruistic carve-out rest on court and Cabinet action, not legislation; the Civil Code 2074 does not regulate surrogacy.

Commercial surrogacy is banned, and surrogacy generally is unregulated because no statute governs it. The position comes from a Supreme Court stay on 25 August 2015, a Cabinet ban on 18 September 2015, and a later Court directive permitting only altruistic surrogacy for infertile Nepali married couples. Without an implementing law, even that limited category is not operational, so surrogacy should be treated as legally unavailable.

Nepal banned commercial surrogacy after concerns that it exploited poor women and operated without safeguards. A 2014 Cabinet decision had allowed it for foreign couples using non-Nepali surrogates, but the April 2015 earthquake exposed the scale of the trade when foreign governments evacuated surrogate-born babies. The Supreme Court issued a stay in August 2015 and the Cabinet voided its authorisation the following month.

The Supreme Court first issued a stay halting commercial surrogacy on 25 August 2015. Its later directive, reported as 12 December 2016, indicated surrogacy should be permitted only for infertile Nepali married couples on an altruistic basis, and not for foreigners, single persons or same-sex couples. The Court also directed the government to legislate, but Parliament has not yet enacted a surrogacy law.

No. The Supreme Court directive that frames the narrow lawful category limits it to infertile Nepali married couples and expressly excludes single persons and same-sex couples, in addition to foreign nationals. Combined with the absence of any implementing law, this means there is no lawful surrogacy route for a same-sex couple in Nepal. Couples exploring family-building options should consider lawful alternatives and take early legal advice.

Yes, briefly. After a 2014 Cabinet decision permitted commercial surrogacy for foreign couples — on condition the surrogate was not a Nepali woman — Nepal became a destination for international intended parents, including from countries where surrogacy was restricted. That window closed in 2015 after the earthquake drew attention to the trade and the Supreme Court intervened, and it has not reopened.

In principle the 2016 directive allows altruistic, non-commercial surrogacy for infertile Nepali married couples. In practice, because no implementing surrogacy or assisted-reproduction law has been passed, there is no procedure, licensing or regulator to make it work. So while the directive carves out a narrow category, even altruistic surrogacy among Nepalis currently lacks a functioning legal framework.

Because surrogacy is unregulated, a child born through it can face uncertainty over legal parentage, registration and citizenship, which is one of the main reasons the practice is discouraged. Where a child has already been born, the priority is to protect the child's welfare and resolve parentage and registration lawfully. These situations are fact-specific and need individual legal advice rather than reliance on any agency's assurances.

Because there is no dedicated surrogacy statute, there is no single, clearly defined penalty provision specific to surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is nonetheless prohibited, and conduct around it can engage other areas of law — for example offences relating to trafficking, fraud or child protection — depending on the facts. The absence of a clear statutory penalty regime is itself part of why the field is treated as off-limits.

Non-resident Nepalis who hold foreign citizenship are treated, for this purpose, like foreign nationals, who are barred from surrogacy in Nepal. NRNs seeking to build a family are usually better served by lawful routes such as domestic adoption, where an NRN with foreign citizenship can fall within the adoption framework, or guardianship within an extended family. Early legal advice clarifies which routes are genuinely available.

In-vitro fertilisation using a married couple's own gametes is available through fertility clinics in Nepal and does not raise the surrogacy prohibition, because it does not involve a third-party gestational carrier. IVF is therefore a lawful infertility treatment for couples who can carry a pregnancy themselves. Couples should confirm the specifics with a licensed clinic, but IVF is treated very differently from surrogacy under Nepal's current position.

Commercial surrogacy involves paying the surrogate a fee beyond reasonable expenses, while altruistic surrogacy involves no payment beyond genuine costs. Nepal's ban targets commercial surrogacy specifically, and the Court directive contemplated only altruistic surrogacy for a narrow category of Nepali couples. Because no law implements even the altruistic carve-out, however, the practical position is that neither form is operating within a clear legal framework.

Be very cautious. There is no lawful commercial surrogacy channel and no regulator licensing surrogacy in Nepal, so an agency advertising surrogacy services — especially to foreigners — is offering something the law does not support. Past abuses are exactly why the practice was banned. Before paying any money or signing anything, get independent legal advice and verify the position rather than relying on the agency's own assurances.

There is no confirmed timeline. The Supreme Court directed the government to legislate, and draft bills on surrogacy and reproductive health have been discussed, but none has been enacted as of 2026. Any future law would need to define who may use surrogacy, on what terms, and how surrogates and children are protected. Until a law is actually passed, the unregulated ban remains the operative position.

No. The Muluki Civil Code 2074 addresses marriage, divorce, parentage, custody, adoption and inheritance, but it does not contain provisions regulating surrogacy or assisted reproduction. This is part of the legislative gap: the questions surrogacy raises — parentage of a child born to a carrier, the surrogate's rights, registration — are not answered by the Code, which is why the area depends on court directives rather than statute.

This is legally fraught and should not be attempted on the basis of an agency's promise. Because surrogacy for foreigners is banned and parentage is not clearly regulated, exit documentation, citizenship and immigration for a surrogate-born child can be impossible to obtain lawfully, as past cases showed. Anyone in this situation needs immediate, specific legal advice and should engage the relevant authorities rather than an intermediary.

The main lawful routes are IVF using the couple's own gametes for those who can carry a pregnancy, and adoption for those who cannot. Domestic adoption under the Civil Code and the Children's Act 2075 is the established path to legal parenthood, and within an extended family guardianship can provide legal responsibility for a child's care. The right route depends on the couple's circumstances and the inheritance and citizenship consequences involved.

Before paying any agency or clinic or signing any agreement involving a Nepali surrogate or a child born in Nepal. A lawyer can confirm the current legal position, explain why an intermediary's assurance may be unreliable, and set out lawful alternatives such as adoption or guardianship. For foreign and NRN intended parents especially, early advice prevents a costly commitment to an arrangement Nepali law does not support.