The Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, Tapa Bahadur Magar, stated that a common consensus should be reached on the proposed Bill on Registration, Regulation, and Management of Associations to provide recommendations to the government. Speaking as the chief guest at an interaction program by INSEC with the support of DCA on 29 August on, the ‘ the impact of the proposed Bill on Registration, Regulation, and Management of Associations 2082, on civil society activities’, Chairperson Magar said they would carefully study the feedback from civil society, which has largely approached the draft from a critical rather than a positive perspective. He emphasized that since the government has sought suggestions on the draft, a common consensus of all stakeholders should be formed to provide recommendations. Chairperson Magar expressed hope that the proposed Bill, drafted to amend and consolidate existing laws, would align with the authority granted by the Constitution.
At the program, Arjun Bhattarai, Chairperson of the NGO Federation of Nepal, emphasized that the bill should only be introduced after the government has clarified its position. He pointed out that the legislation would affect 17 federations, thousands of domestic NGOs, and hundreds of international NGOs. He noted that the draft bill classifies organizations based on their objectives, affects civil and political rights, and even impacts women’s groups and mothers’ groups. He stressed the need to establish a development board. Bhattarai further stated that if the bill is passed in its current form, the requirement to obtain approval from local authorities, even to run campaigns, would be a negative step.
INSEC Executive Director Bijay Raj Gautam remarked that the government’s outlook toward NGOs appears doubtful. He reminded that the support provided by various development partners and international NGOs goes through several layers of scrutiny before being finalized. Gautam emphasized that only through a joint initiative can stakeholders provide suggestions on the draft and push for laws that respect the constitutional fundamental right to freedom of association.
At the program, human rights activist Shantalal Mulmi remarked that under the draft bill, organizations registered according to the National Directives Act of 1961 and the Associations Registration Act of 1977 would be brought under a single umbrella law. The bill is designed to regulate the registration, operation, and monitoring of organizations within the jurisdiction of all three tiers of government, in line with the spirit of federalism. He pointed out that the proposed bill imposes excessive requirements for prior approvals, permissions, and conditions, and urged the government not to push human rights defenders toward agitation. The draft bill states that international NGOs cannot carry out any activities without the approval of the department and the registering authority.
Human Rights Activist Bhakta Bishwakarma highlighted that Section 19 of the proposed bill contains provisions on prior approval, and stressed that even the preamble of the Act is confusing and must be made clear. He stated that the proposed bill fosters negative sentiments and attempts to criminalize organizations by requiring prior approval even for drafting and implementing programs, mobilizing resources for implementation, opening branch offices within their working areas, and appointing employees, workers, or advisors and determining their terms of service. Similarly, Bishwakarma expressed the view that since the proposed bill requires organizations to obtain permission even for publishing and disseminating information to achieve their objectives, it prioritizes control and punishment over facilitation.
Nitu Pandit, Central Vice Chairperson of the Federation of Nepali Journalists, remarked that the draft law is even more regressive than the Association Registration Act of 1977. She said that, under the guise of specification, the draft has made transparency and accountability even more complicated. She pointed out that since the provision mentioned in section 7(ṅ) has not been defined, it has created further complications. Emphasizing that NGOs have long been agents of change and partners in cooperation, she stressed that the government must not forget their contributions.
Human Rights Activist Bhavana Bhatta, in the program, stated that the draft of the Federated Organizations Act, 2015, which NGO staff have long been advocating for, focuses on four ministries. She observed that the draft prioritizes centralized authority over facilitation for NGOs. He noted that the draft bill proposes allowing such organizations to operate only with conditions set by the Department of Social Welfare and stressed that, since it seeks to restrict rights rather than recognize the contributions of NGOs toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, the Act needs to be rewritten.
Human Rights Activist Ashok Singh added that the 2025 Federated Organizations Act is neither rights-oriented under the Constitution nor human-rights-friendly.
Mina Bishta, Chairperson of Jagaran Nepal, stated that the draft creates difficulties by requiring audit reports to be submitted before the end of the fiscal year.
Giridhari Subedi noted that the inclusion of the Social Welfare Department and the requirement for organizations to obtain a recommendation from the federal registrar and a permit from the Ministry of Finance to operate within Nepal or run any project have increased complications.
Dilbahadur Air of Save the Children noted that the draft Act focuses on regulation and control, and emphasized that the state should also pay attention to facilitation. He added that the government seems to be attempting to restrict the role of civil society. He further mentioned that by including matters that should be addressed in guidelines and procedures directly in the Act, the draft risks becoming even more cumbersome than the current law.
Mohan Dangal of Child Nepal pointed out that, according to the Constitution, there are three tiers of government, but for the purpose of registering federated organizations, the government has divided authority across four tiers. He explained that, under the proposed Act, a First Class Gazetted Officer (Undersecretary) at the federal level would serve as the Federal Registrar, operating an office under the ministry. The officer would also be granted the authority and responsibility to register and regulate professional federations, as well as national and international federated organizations within the federal jurisdiction.
Rashmila Prajapati, a representative of the BBC, stated that the draft Act appears more focused on restrictions than facilitation in the operation of federated organizations.
Human rights activist Anuradha Joshi noted that the provision preventing a new organization from registering in an area where one already exists seeks to restrict rights, emphasizing that it is time for civil society to speak out against it.
Human rights activist Dr. Prakash Bhattarai remarked that the drafter of the Act seems to lack understanding of federated organizations and stressed that the government should first familiarize itself with such organizations before implementing regulations. He emphasized that attention should be given to the registration, renewal, and smooth operation of programs, as well as monitoring and evaluation of federated organizations. He stressed the need to clearly define the different types of organizations in Nepal and to establish a framework outlining their processes. He further noted that the classification of federated organizations should consider functional and thematic aspects, be based on budgets, and also reflect the work performed and the outcomes achieved.
Human rights activist Dr. Giri Panthi emphasized that, since the government has signed international treaties and conventions, not all organizations need to be registered, and this aspect must be taken into account.
Journalist Kamala Panthi pointed out that the draft Act makes civil society’s work more difficult rather than easier, stressing that if issues are not resolved through dialogue, street protests may become necessary.
Mina Sharma, Chairperson of the Human Rights Communication Institute, urged that the draft Act needs to be rewritten rather than merely receiving suggestions.
Laxmi Karki of RRN stated that the draft Act focuses on curbing rights, especially at a time when the resources of civil society organizations are already shrinking.
Human Rights Activist Benumaya Gurung noted that the draft Act appears to be based on the mistakes of a few organizations, highlighting the need for civil rights activists to raise their voices strongly.
Indra Aryal of the Nepal Human Rights Organization stated that federated organizations are established and operated to foster partnership, oversight, and vigilance with the government. He pointed out that the draft Act contains flaws in creating an environment for these organizations to operate within the framework of Nepal’s Constitution and international law.
Human Rights Activist Rajendra Thapa stated that the draft Act restricts the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and emphasized that civil society must submit its own draft to the government to ensure future generations can continue to establish federated organizations. He added that, based on the current draft, the Act runs contrary to the spirit of federalism.
Human Rights Activist Shobhakar Budhathoki noted that the government has made the draft Federated Organizations Act overly controlling, and stated that it was drafted from a negative perspective, viewing federated organizations primarily through the lens of government officials. He explained that the draft Act provides for the appointment of registrars at the provincial level and defines the jurisdiction of provincial-level federated organizations. It also allows the Chief District Officer to be appointed as the district registrar and establishes local registrars for the registration and regulation of organizations at the local level. He expressed the view that the draft does not follow its own stated principles in practice.
Samjha Shrestha, Chief of Human Rights Advocacy Programs at INSEC Central Office, stated that after the Ministry of Home Affairs released the draft bill for public feedback, it lumped together over 50,000 community-based organizations, mothers’ groups, and neighborhood improvement committees across the country, creating an unnecessarily cumbersome burden.
