Sombhojen Limbu
Assistant Professor at the Kathmandu University, School of Law – NEPAL – Sombhojen.limbu@ku.edu.np

1. Introduction
The Constitution of Nepal 2015 is the 7th Constitution in the period of seventy years for a Constitutional development history of Nepal. One of the many features of this Apex law of land is the federal democratic republican which is unprecedented in the history of Nepal. Similarly, the fact, previous the Constitutions were drafted by Constitution Commissions or by the nominee representatives of the respective power held authorities but the existing Constitution was drafted and promulgated by the Constituent Assembly who were elected by people and conferred special mandate to draft the Constitution of Nepal.

“Constitutionalism suggests the limitation of power, the separation of powers and the doctrine of responsible accountable Government”¹. Charles H. Mcilwain says “constitutionalism is connotes in essence limited government or a limitation on government. It says constitutionalism is the antithesis of arbitrary power”². The apex law has inducted such doctrine in Nepal³ even concern all authorities have agreed by in written form to be complied it.

Judiciary of Nepal has order a writ of mandamus against the President of Nepal to appoint Prime Minister, pursuant Sub-Article 2 & 5 of Article 76 of the Constitution of Nepal, to the opposition leader of House of Representative⁴. It has raised a question of the separation of power among the State’s limited power such as the exclusive power to appoint a Prime Minister belongs to the House of Representative in the Constitution. It might be violated the universally established principle of constitutionalism and a fundamental doctrine of Marbury V. Madison case (1803) case. It was not a first incident to reverse the President decision by the recommendation of the Council of Minister to dissolve the House of Representative. On December 20, 2020, the first time the President dissolved the House of Representative under this Constitution then the Apex Court ruled out the decision of the President was unconstitutional on 22 February 2021.

A judiciary is the main pillar to protect, promote, enforce the values, and spirits of the existing Constitution. The private attorneys are the part of judiciary and they would enhance independent and the rule of law. The Constitution inducts “the Supreme Court shall have the final authority to interpret this Constitution and laws”⁵. However Nepal Bar Association, lawyers’ organization, has “on protest for weeks as demanding the removal of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana from the post”⁶. It creates deep standoff within the judiciary and stakeholders to implementing independence of Judiciary and the rule of law in the Country. As of today the Executive and Legislature authorities are being reluctant to mitigate the stalemate of Judiciary and they might be neglected strengthening the federal democratic Constitution in Nepal.

Prof. M.P Jain says “a written Constitution, Independent of judiciary with power of judicial review, the doctrine of the rule of law and separation of power, free election to legislature, accountable and transparent democratic government, and fundamental rights of the people, federalism, and decentralization of power are some of the principles and norms which promote constitutionalism in a country”⁷. I would say no more discussion required for either the Constitution in Nepal has enshrined or not these principles are absolutely injected.

The former six Constitutions had its own distinct features and modalities. At the first time Rana regime introduced “Government of Nepal Act 1948“⁸ in 1948. It was post-independence periods and they had promised to introduce reforms in Nepal. They invited “Mr. Sri Prakasa, a Congress leader from U.P, and the late Cr. R.U. Singh, of Lucknow University, to assist in the preparation of Constitution for Nepal”⁹. It was the evidence Nepal has started to reception of law from outside of its own traditional values. “Nepal’s 1951 Interim Constitution featured a modified version of the British principle of King-in-Council as executive powers were vested in the King and the Council of Ministers”.¹⁰ However there was no clear indicator how the King formulated this Constitution but influenced by Freedom fighters who were educated aftermath of the Second World War and quit India movement against British Empire in India. Similarly “The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1959”¹¹ was promulgated it was third Constitution of Nepal while drafting the Constitution “British constitutionalist Sir Ivor Jennings (1903-1965) as constitutional advisor to the Nepal Government. Mr. Jennings visited Kathmandu for one month from 28 March to 24 April 1958 then he was employed by the British Foreign Office (FO) upon the request of the Nepali monarch, King Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah, to advise the small Commission charged with the drafting of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1959 – the third constitutional document in the country’s history”¹². It was the first history the receipting of Parliamentary System in Nepal. Sir Ivor Jennings fully supported the commission to introduced election process, formulation of the cabinet under this Constitution for a model of Parliament system in Nepal. Even today we have the same practices in the federal democratic republican Constitution of Nepal.

King Mahendar dissolved the elected parliament and abolished the third Constitution. He promulgated “The Constitution of Nepal 1962”¹³ was the fourth Constitution. It had restricted basic doctrines of constitutionalism in Nepal. We had a written Constitution but no constitutionalism. The King was above the law and he could exercise all power according to the Royal Shah family interest actually there was no political freedom, independency of Judiciary and free and fair election in the country. It was introduced an original soil based Panchayat system we had been a century long practices. The King Mahendra introduced the same practices in the Constitution and tries to avoid all type of invasion from outside in the name of democratic system.

In 1990 “the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal” was promulgated, a fifth Constitution, by late King Birendra Shah. This law of land was the more democratic in connection with constitutionalism doctrines were precisely inducted. It had recognized a doctrine of judicial review, Independence of Judiciary, free and fair election, fundamental rights as Prof. M.P Jain says indicators to strengthen constitutionalism in a country. The late King’s power was constitutionally limited and completely the similar practice of Commonwealth Parliament system. However judiciary reviewed the validity of the parliament power either if they violated conferred power or not in the Constitution in order to enable the doctrine of constitutionalism. Under this constitution Judiciary had reversed the enacted laws by parliament and a decision of the executive on the ground of the supremacy of the Constitution. We have inducted new principles and practices via judicial activism in prevailed system.

2. New era for Nepal
in Democracy
It has the new era begun “almost simultaneously the autocratic Rana regime in Nepal was overthrown by a combination of revolutionary elements and the late King Tribhuvan”¹⁴. The Rana family had ruled one hundred and four years as de facto power over the Royal Shah family in Nepal. The Shah family was de jure ceremonial Kingdom due to limited power to rule the country till overthrown the Rana regime in 1950. “The King took this desperate step to win his own and his people’s freedom from the autocratic rule of the Rana family, which had monopolized all important offices since 1846 and held the Kings and other members of the Royal family as virtual prisoners after the manner of the Shogunate in Japan”¹⁵. Late king Tribhuvan took a great bold decision against the Rana regime as to restore people sovereignty and democracy in Nepal.

Freedom and independency movement, aftermath of the second world war and quit India of East Indian Company, directly influenced to revolutionary elements and the Royal in Nepal. “The Indian freedom movement, which reached its climax in the “Quit India” movement of 1942, inevitably influences the Nepalese people, particularly those who had stayed for long periods in India”¹⁶. The group had convinced the late King to emancipate the country from the Rana Family rule.

Nepal does not have a long history of a written law “precisely because no codification of the law on the scale of the Ain had been attempted before, it is not always clear whether or not particular provisions are innovations. There can, however, be no doubt that Jain is right to see it as a fundamentally conservative document”¹⁷ “However else the Ain may have reflected foreign influence, there are adequate grounds for suspecting that it helped plant the idea of codification in Jang’s mind. It is true that Nepal’s own history offered precedents, for there existed already law codes of sorts ascribed to the fifteenth-century Kathmandu ruler, Jayasthitii Malla, and Rama Shah, a seventeenth-century king of Gorkha, and Prithvi Narayan Shah”¹⁸.

What we have done for over seventy years it has completely been our on trial and error into the previous Constitutions. We have never analysis why changed the Constitutions and unable to comply such failed Constitution’s doctrines in Nepal. We could have changed the leaders and attitudes of us but often replaced the Constitutions. Instead to replace political parties and leaders we introduced a new Constitution with influence by receipts laws from unfamiliar systems and most of them failed in our practices.

3. Democracy and its
surrounding challenges
surrounding challenges “Democracy cannot be imposed from outside. Societies must develop their own genuine and sustainable forms of democracy organically, from within”¹⁹. The incident to Mr. Hamid Karzai led government, backed by USA, in Afghanistan toppled down by Taliban fighters in 2020 the best example how democracy does not work imposed from the outside.

What is democracy? It may common understanding as people would participate for policy formulation, decision making and enforcement for their own betterment by themselves. A vital question is whether it has been consistently existed or not in the respective society would strength the values of democracy. Obviously impose from outside democracy could not exist consistently due to difference of culture, religion and way of living in respective society. “Long back, former President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln said, “Democracy is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.”²⁰. He further says “democracy is defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections”²¹. “Democracy has been defined in many ways. Bryce believes that “Democracy really means nothing more or less than the rule of the whole people, expressing their sovereign will by their votes”²². MacIver observes, “Democracy is not a way of governing, whether by majority or otherwise, but primarily a way of determining, who shall govern, and broadly to what ends”²³.

A report suggests that challenges to Indian democracy are Illiteracy, poverty, gender discrimination, casteism, communalism, religious fundamentalism, regionalism, corruption, criminalization of politics, political violence“²⁴ Indian democracy is the model to other countries how they lead forward it despite the above mentioned surrounding stalemate.

A journalist took interviewed some Nepalese experts regarding to Nepal’s Democracy Challenges then published in the Kathmandu Post “there are some indicators what are the challenges such as failed to strengthen and build system and institutions friendly to the people, instability of government, leaders need to be made accountability, even it says democracy will face some challenges like it is facing today for some decades more told by Prasai”²⁵.

The Constitution of Nepal has accepted values of the rule of law, separation of power and checks and balance principles. The executive, parliament and judiciary have their own limited areas of accountable and responsibility confers such power by the Constitution. However the power exercise by concern authorities seem odd and controversial such as Ordinance amended the Constitution²⁶ then appointed fifty two Constitutional Commissions’ members after approved the proposed name of members by simple majority of Constitutional Council it is completely against the provision of Article 284 of the Constitution²⁷. Later a writ has filed at the apex court to challenge the Ordinance which has been jurisdiction to the Constitutional bench as of now it has been sub-judiced and appointees tenure are being uncertainty and reluctant to discharge full authorities.

Parliamentary Session in 2021 (Bill Session) had completely been disturbed by the opposition members from the first day as their demand would to resign the Speaker of the House of Representative and remove fourteen parliament members who have elected or nominated by their party then later the mentioned members formed a new party eventually the government abruptly ended the Session²⁸. It shows how the sovereign people could exercise their power via their elected representative in the Parliament. Hence such practices are being setback to strengthen the existing system in Nepal.

Judiciary is not exceptional from the controversy one of the most controversy decisions was the Apex court order a writ of Mandamus against the President of Nepal to appoint Mr. Sher Bahadur Deuba as Prime Minister of Nepal by seventy two hours from the decision of case²⁹. It is completely against the principle of the separation of power as the Prime Minister shall be elected by exclusive power to the House of Representative. It is an absolute and inherent power to the House of Representative members as the Supreme Court shall not have rights to issued Mandamus writ against the Article 76 of the Constitution for determining to appoint someone to be a Prime Minister as the Head of Executive. A large mass including the member of the House of Representative would be surprised in such the court order against the President. It has now been a popular slogan saying that the Prime Minister of Nepal has appointed by the order of Mandamus instead the House of Representative. Even some political experts strongly opposed the decision as they argue the Court shall not have right to interfering to appoint the Prime Minister through elected representatives in Parliament of Nepal.

In addition the federal Constitution might not implement property among the federal, provinces and local level authorities such as provinces and local level authorities would still rely on to the federal government decision instead they do have exercise their own power delegated in the Constitution. The province executives could often argue that the central government does not allow them to work independently and provincial parliament expresses their dissatisfaction as the federal parliament has often prevented to exercise enumerated power confers in the Constitution³⁰. However there is strong suspicion that the capability of the province leaders in order to enforce the enumerate power might doubtful and unable to understand properly because they do not have mature experience in this areas. So the center is still reluctant to extend these powers to them independently as per the Constitution.

4. Judiciary and its role
to deliver objectives of the
Constitution;
Judiciary is at the center point to safeguard fundamental freedoms for people and ensure limited governments under the constitutionalism in Nepal. Independency of Judiciary is one of many majors feature of the Constitution along the power to interpret laws and Constitution. It shall have accountable to ensure the rule of law, separation of power and exclusive power to judicial reviews in order to state’s authorities accountable toward the Constitution.

The Constitution of Nepal shall have assured a constitutional responsibility to limit power of the executive and the legislature determines by the Supreme Court of Nepal³¹. Judiciary of Nepal has delivered number of verdicts in the cases of limited power of them and revoked some decisions which are being inconsistent with the doctrine of the constitutionalism. The House of Representative dissolved case had declared violation of limited power by the Executive along with explicitly violated procedural of Article 76 of the Constitution³². It shows the power to judicial activism in order to limit the power of the executive as per the Constitution.

Recently Honorable Judge at Supreme Court of Nepal, Hari Krishna Karki, submitted a Supreme Court panel report on rampant corruption in judiciary to the Chief Justice at the Apex Court³³ regarding to eliminate corruption in Judiciary indicates there are many areas to reform by judiciary including appointment of Judges to identify middle men to spoil justice system in Nepal. It has forwarded major identify areas to spread corruption in judiciary as completely threat a justice system in Nepal. Threat to justice means obviously challenges to the existing system in a country if justice might not deliver properly it means increased injustice and a regime could run against the rule of law. A report indicates Judges, Lawyers, family members of Judges, Employees at Judiciary, Political leaders including a part of executive could involve in mess up games for justice. In the same report suggested that the Chief Justice must stand to implement the recommended points in order to eliminate corruption in Judiciary.

About thirty thousand cases are being sub-judiced at the apex court of Nepal as of today, every year it has been increased nearly two thousand cases. A judge may deliver verdict for fifteen hundred cases, in present moment, out of twenty one judges at the apex court. Interesting records prevailed that some cases have been sub-judiced more than a decade in the same court despite a Supreme Court Regulation says earlier registered referral cases at Supreme Court will be decided³⁴. A decade for seeking justice in the same court means completely injustice as delay justice is denial justice and it is mandatory responsibility for administration of Supreme Court shall have to refer a priority case to a bench for hearing. A hearing bench’s verdict in a case is one of the very lengthy and complicate process for justice seekers in Supreme Court. There are many reasons despite Judiciary has committed to deliver justice in timely. Registered case numbers have very high, tiny dispute related cases are being approached in the Court and lack of systematic case referral system at the bench are major causes delaying for settlement.

Similarly unprecedented practiced held in Judiciary of Nepal as Supreme Court Judges boycotted hearing a case at bench saying to resign Chief Justice, Cholendra Shamsher Rana, had been alleged involving in corruption activities. Almost thirty days on refusing to set on the beach by the Judges at Supreme Court of Nepal in order to reform the judiciary and control corruption in the Judiciary. A demand was resignation of the Chief Justice and implements justice Karki’s report “The Supreme Court of Nepal has become sharply divided with judges taking the unprecedented step of boycotting their Benches on Monday, holding up hundreds of cases. Judges are calling for the resignation of Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, accusing him of making deals with political parties, especially with Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, and even securing a ministerial berth for one of his relatives. On Tuesday, a 14 out the 20 judges met Rana and insisted that he resigns to save the dignity and credibility of the judiciary³⁵. It was unprecedented incident in judicial history as SC Judges demanded the resignation of the Chief Justice in Nepal. It may indicate how the corruption could play vital roles in judiciary because Judges have indicated the Chief Judge suspected to involve mislead justice system in Nepal. Eventually Ninety eight members of the House of Representative signed and registered a motion of impeachment against the Chief Justice at the Secretariat of Parliament of Nepal³⁶. The impeachment case is being under consideration at the House of Representative. It shows nexus-with-power challenges to eliminate corruption as a high profile person might suspect for involvement and mostly the authorities could reluctant to take in action. Pending to decide a motion of impeachment against the Chief Justice would clearly indicate how ordinary citizen could be satisfied the justice delivery in the county. As polarization of the House of Representative members on the motion of impeachment itself explicitly setback to purification our judiciary and lack of will power to implement a Karki’s report as well.

Justice never compromises regardless of money, power, race, origin, caste and religion etc. Cited by a writer as Justice Antonia Scalia says only when there is a sound government structure, including an independent judiciary, do those “words on paper” acquire practical meaning and are right enforceable” an alleging to incapability of Parliament members one of many examples in Nepal to spoil corruption in Judiciary and violating purity of the separation of power by various means such as to appoint a judge, influence on judgment in favor to them etc. So in fact as the opposition party at the House of Representative has clearly vowed they could not vote in support to the motion of impeachment instead discussion on against allegation to the Chief Justice as per the Constitution of Nepal³⁷. Structure seems completely unfair even they disturbed on the process for discussion which are the exclusive power to the House of Representative to impeach or remove the Chief Justice. So how ordinary people believe justice for victim could be delivered by Judiciary under such circumstances. So the justice Karki’s report clearly indicated corruption mess up to justice and justice seekers in Judiciary.

Extra-legal entity formed under the government alliance parties, compromised five senior leaders, mostly they would decide important issues in order to support the Executive and Parliament decisions. It is quite considerable because the Constitution of Nepal has been introduced few years back it needs multiple strengthen supports by various ways. Justice Breyer once said “following the law is a matter of custom, of habit, of widely shared understanding as to how those in government and members of the public should…..act when faced with a court decision they strongly dislike. That habit and widely shared understanding cannot be achieved without a struggle; it is a long gradual development based on experience”³⁸. It means extra-legal entity would be required in order to achieve the goals of justice as per the law of land. But what is their Constitutional position? If they undermined the sovereign decision exercise by the House of Representatives and the responsibility, accountability of the Executive who might take responsibility either the Constitution or a member of Extra-entity? And most of their decisions have revealed tiny circle decision for benefits instead enable the spirit of the Constitution.

The opposition party at the House of Representative has disturbed the Parliament Meeting from the first day of the Session as demanding to step down the Speaker. They alleged the Speaker roles seem a party cadre instead impartial and unable to decide the application submitted by the opposition leader demanding to revoke fourteen parliament members elected from their party. Political leaders are the actors to drive the Constitution in every country either its democratic or autocratic whatever. They need to understand the true spirit and destination of the Constitution for this purpose they should discussion and follow the set up guidelines with healthy and decent manner. Disturbed the House Session means to some extent it is completely setbacks and deadlock the Constitution and its destination. The incidents occurred around us seem complicated challenges to achieve the social justice via the existing Constitution.

5. The existing Constitution and its provisions towards to social welfare
The Constitution 2015 has accepted Nepal is a multiethnic, multilingual, multi-religious, multicultural and geographically diversity³⁹. It promotes egalitarian community everyone can live with own distinct diversity characteristic in Nepal. Nepal adopts a secular state and everyone can live with dignity and liberty in under democratic values and system. There are thirty one fundamental rights⁴⁰ in the Constitution which are mandatory to implement by state machineries for citizens of the Country in order to secure welfare society.

Inclusiveness is one of the major features of this Constitution to privilege Constitutional rights for selected groups such as women, ethnic, Dalits, Madhesi, geographically backwards and intellectual disability groups etc. To some extent the Judiciary seems very positive to interpret the meaning of the constitutionally privilege for specifically confine groups for their betterment.

The Constitution confers directive principles, policies and responsibility to state machineries⁴¹ while they formulating policies and programs they should give priorities for recognized guidelines according to the prevailed provisions. Actually State’s policies are national integrity, fraternity, prosperity, security, and build up political system, social and cultural transformation, finance, industries, and commerce including social justice and inclusion are the mandatory for state. Unfortunately such rights are not remediable it says such rights shall not be remediable by the Court⁴². These provisions are just revealed teeth without power to bite or break anything for enabling justice either to follow or reject no one can monitor or accountable to it.

Inclusiveness is one of vital feature of the Constitution and it has applied to measure via many means delivering social welfare so one of them is inclusion which is the foundation to proceed achieving social welfare in Nepal⁴³. There are many questions around us who need to social welfare justice in Nepal it is common to ask everyone in term of case, gender, race, geographical location etc. The Constitution says equality is also part of social welfare on proviso part of Article 18 of the Constitution says “ Special provisions by law for the protection, empowerment or development of the citizens including the socially or culturally backward women, Dalit, Indigenous people, Madhesi, Tharu, Muslim, Oppressed class, Pichhada class, minorities…backward region and indigent Khas Arya”⁴⁴. It shows the specific groups would need equality because of they had structurally excluded in the past by state and treated them second class citizen in their own home country. In addition rights to religion⁴⁵, language and culture⁴⁶ are guaranteed in the Constitution for them as well. Right to Dalits, women, children and ageing people rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution. It shows regardless of their caste, race, religions, geographical location and birth they need to special treatment by state and lead them toward social welfare in the country. This Constitution is very young in term of put forward its objectives so the concern groups need to follow the state’s accountability toward enforcement efficiency as well. Obviously it could not get success over night it takes over decades but need to keep monitor by concern authorities either they would move properly or not by their accountable action.

Social welfare itself is a complicate to measure via government accountable Amartya Sen indicates “Economic unfreedom can also breed social unfreedom, just as social and political unfreedom can also foster economies unfreedom”⁴⁷. State’s rescores distribution equally and access to policy formulation and enforcement for excluded groups deserves exclusive rights to get participation on this process only the existing political system confers freedom for them. Meanwhile, ‘transformative social protection’ is a more recent concept that is often rights based and seeks to transform existing inequities through sensitization, empowerment and advocacy along with transfers (Ellis et al. 2009:7)⁴⁸. So freedom is one of many elements for understanding a path to social welfare. Widow women below the age of 60 have received Nepal government allowance by the order of the Apex Court of Nepal⁴⁹. Nepal’s Constitution has incorporated such rights but it is very hard to believe such rights ensure socio-economic justice due to lack of good governance and rampant corruption in the state machineries.

A Constitution is pre-fixed rules to overcome such types of discrimination, prejudice in order to ensure welfare for women, Dalits, Indigenous, Madhesi so inclusion is one of commencement points to enable welfare them in order access to resources and policy making body. State promises that 33% for women, 27% for Indigenous, 20% for Madheshi, 9% for Dalits, 4% for people from the backward areas, 5% for person with disability⁵⁰ in all apparatus for inclusion are their fundamental rights. It is the fundamental step by enacted law to deliver social justice in Nepal.

The existing Constitution has just been for few years so there are many cases regarding to interpretation of its provision in term of social justice under consideration at the Apex Court. However SC has interpreted the same grounds to enforce social justice in term of strengthening the Constitution. Sabina Damai⁵¹ case recognized equality women and men in term of obtain a citizenship by a child despite the Constitution allows equal status. It says authority must obey the equal status for parents to obtain a child citizenship. Authority might reluctant offering citizenship to seekers with certify by a mother. So single mother, non-identify father, divorce mother, and adoptee child has seemed problem to obtain a citizenship by a child.

6. Conclusion
Social justice itself is wider areas and generally not possible to cover entire prospective to understand in depth way. The Constitution of Nepal has made promise for achieving justice to all citizens under the existing political system. A history shows there were exclusion practices applied by state and its discriminatory policies for particular groups in the structural systematic way in the name of to fulfill a tiny group interest. It has proved that every supreme laws uncovered injustice and exclusion practices in Nepal. Fundamental law has realized that without social justice to exclude groups in terms of economic empowerment, inclusion in all institutions, restore their dignity and identity the exiting political system might not able to strengthen forever.

Political leaders have multiples responsibility and accountability toward prevailing system as justice is the foundation to deliver equality to all regardless of their castes, origin, languages, gender etc. However there are many contentious issues discharged by the leaders either they are being a member of the House of Representative or the Executive. So ordinary people particularly those who realized they belong in marginalized or excluded section they are being more victimized and exploited by such performance of concern authorities in the country. Thus they need to understand or be united how to overcome and standoff against exploitation by state’s systematic structural policies which has been still not uncovered in practices.

Undermined by stakeholders to comply the spirits of constitutionalism might be consequence to lead frustration and demotivation for social justice stipulated in the Constitution. For six years period of promulgation of the Constitution it faced a lot of unprecedented challenges such as Ordinances amended the Constitution, the House of Representative dissolved twice in a first tenure of the members, political leaders’ refits inside or outside of parties and a cabinet instability might be examples to set back for social justice from the federal Constitution.

Ordinary people could expect change might happen overnight in areas of basic needs for them as confers provisions in the Constitution. It might be possible to deliver basic promised made if the government could have done better than the existing situation but they did not. Frustration may going up against the leaders and the existing system mentioned in the supreme law which could very costly and unbearable by this Constitution if we would not reform our attitudes and performance accountability. We talk a lot and made unbelievable promise to ordinary citizen but deliver capacity seems little as of today so there are many challenges to deliver the social justice from the current model of accountable and responsibility by stakeholders in Nepal.