- Nepal’s Supreme Court ordered the government to draft regulations for medicinal, scientific, and industrial cannabis cultivation within a strict three-month timeframe.
- Gandaki Province recently passed its own cannabis legislation, requiring the federal government to harmonize national laws and clarify jurisdictional boundaries.
- Authorities must establish a strict licensing and oversight system to ensure international treaty compliance and prevent diversion into illicit markets.
- The government must balance economic opportunities for rural farmers with public health safeguards and necessary processing infrastructure for successful implementation.
After decades of prohibition and years of political debate, Nepal’s Supreme Court has ordered the government to regulate cannabis cultivation for medicinal, scientific, and industrial use. With Gandaki Province passing its own legislation, Kathmandu can no longer rely on budget promises—it must close legal gaps, coordinate with provincial authorities, and build a working regulatory system.
Kathmandu, Nepal: For years, cannabis reform in Nepal has existed mostly in political speeches, budget announcements, and stalled parliamentary debates. Leaders have touted its economic potential, farmers have expressed keen interest in cultivation, and successive governments have pledged action on medicinal use. Yet, the country still lacks a functioning national framework for commercial production.
Two recent developments have pushed the issue past the point of political rhetoric. First, Nepal’s Supreme Court ordered the federal government to draft specific regulations, standards, and procedures for controlled cannabis cultivation. Second, Gandaki Province passed its own legislation permitting medicinal and industrial production. Together, these moves leave Kathmandu with an unavoidable responsibility: to move from promises to execution, align conflicting laws, and clarify how the system will operate.
Neither development is a green light for recreational legalization or unrestricted farming. Rather, they represent a demand for strict state supervision—a clear legal architecture that unlocks permitted economic and scientific uses while safeguarding public health and preventing illicit trade. The central question now is whether the government will fulfill its legal mandate or allow another policy commitment to stall.
The Supreme Court’s Mandate for Accountability
The judicial push stems from a writ petition filed by advocate Saroj Adhikari and others, highlighting a long-standing gap in Nepal’s drug-control regime. While a division bench of Justices Nahakul Subedi and Til Prasad Shrestha originally issued the verdict on May 18, 2025, the full text was only made public on November 1, 2026.
In its ruling, the court gave the government three months from the date of receiving the formal order to formulate regulations covering controlled cultivation for medicinal, scientific, agricultural, horticultural, and industrial purposes. The mandate requires a comprehensive system governing licensing, processing, storage, distribution, and trade, alongside strict enforcement against unauthorized activities.
Crucially, the justices questioned the executive branch’s prolonged failure to exercise its rule-making authority under the Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act of 1976 (2033 BS). Beyond the future of cannabis, the ruling strikes at a core issue of governance: why should existing legal provisions remain dead letters simply because authorities fail to draft the rules needed to enforce them?
To comply, the government must make its implementation process transparent. Because the three-month clock starts upon official receipt of the order, Kathmandu needs to publicly confirm that date, designate the lead ministries, and publish a clear regulatory timetable.
A Law of Prohibition and Untapped Provisions
Understanding the court’s frustration requires looking at the Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act of 1976, which has shaped Nepal’s policy for half a century. The Act defines cannabis broadly—encompassing hemp and medicinal varieties—and imposes a blanket ban on its cultivation, trade, and consumption. At the same time, however, the statute contains limited provisions for regulated activities and empowers the government to frame rules to put them into practice.
Because successive administrations never drafted those rules, Nepal has remained trapped in a legal gray zone. Unauthorized farming remains criminalized, yet no legal pathway exists for legitimate actors. For farmers, researchers, and pharmaceutical investors, this ambiguity creates unacceptable risk; for law enforcement, it blurs the line between sanctioned research and illegal trafficking. The court’s directive forces the government to finally define who can issue licenses, which activities are permitted, and how compliance will be policed.
Political Promises Versus Practical Governance
While the bureaucracy stalled, the political class frequently revisited the issue without delivering concrete results. In 2020, lawmaker Sher Bahadur Tamang introduced a private member’s bill to overhaul cannabis laws, but it failed to gain traction. Later, the government’s 2024/25 federal budget announced plans to make legal arrangements for commercial medicinal cannabis—a pledge that raised expectations among advocates but produced no actual regulatory machinery.
A budget line is not a statute, and a policy speech is not a licensing board. Parliament must now step in to examine whether the 1976 Act requires formal amendment and ensure any reform follows proper legislative channels. Notably, the Supreme Court drew a sharp line between regulated cultivation and recreational use, ordering immediate rules for the former while advising broad stakeholder consultation before considering any changes to the latter. Kathmandu must not let the contentious debate over recreational legalization delay the specific regulatory work the court has already mandated.
Gandaki’s Legislation Tests Federal Coordination
As the federal government deliberated, Gandaki Province took matters into its own hands. In July 2026, the Gandaki Provincial Assembly passed a bill to regulate medicinal and industrial cannabis. Province Chief Dilli Raj Bhatta initially returned the bill on July 24, citing potential friction with federal law and questions of provincial jurisdiction. Undeterred, the assembly passed the bill again without amendments on July 31, and the Province Chief authenticated it on August 3.
Gandaki’s law outlines a provincial licensing regime, designated cultivation zones, and monitoring protocols, though detailed rules are still needed before permits can be issued. While legislative initiative at the provincial level adds welcome urgency, it also exposes a looming constitutional friction: how a provincial act interacts with the national Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act.
If federal and provincial frameworks are not harmonized, farmers and investors could face contradictory rules, while local police and provincial regulators may clash over jurisdiction. Kathmandu must coordinate directly with Gandaki—and anticipate similar moves by other provinces—to build a unified national standard that accommodates regional initiatives without breeding legal chaos.
Navigating International Rules and Economic Realities
Any domestic framework must also satisfy Nepal’s international obligations. Under the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, cannabis is strictly controlled, yet Article 28 allows countries to permit cultivation for medicinal and scientific use, provided they enforce the strict state supervision outlined in Article 23. Furthermore, the convention explicitly exempts cultivation intended exclusively for industrial fibre and seed, or horticultural purposes, from those specific controls.
To meet these standards, Nepal needs a tightly audited supply chain featuring crop registration, product testing, seed-to-sale traceability, and strict safeguards against diversion into the black market. While Kathmandu should study successful regulatory models abroad, it must tailor its approach to Nepal’s local administrative capacity and legal realities rather than importing foreign blueprints wholesale.
Equally important is managing economic expectations. Proponents rightly point out that industrial hemp and medicinal cannabis could revitalize rural economies, creating jobs in textiles, construction materials, oils, and pharmaceuticals while curbing youth out-migration. However, cannabis is not a silver bullet for poverty or abandoned farmland. Without guaranteed buyers, processing infrastructure, and technical training, encouraging farmers to plant the crop could lead to financial ruin. Licensing must also be structured to empower smallholder farmers and cooperatives, ensuring the sector is not monopolized by large corporations.
Safeguarding Public Health
As economic arguments gain momentum, public health cannot be treated as an afterthought. Heavy cannabis use impairs memory and coordination and carries risks of dependency, particularly among young people exposed to high-potency products.
A credible regulatory system must strictly separate non-intoxicating industrial hemp from medical-grade cannabis and illicit intoxicants. This requires enforceable THC thresholds, clear packaging and labeling laws, advertising bans, and medical oversight for prescriptions. Simultaneously, public education campaigns and clear directives to police are essential so that regulated farming is neither misunderstood by the public as general legalization nor wrongly targeted by law enforcement.
The Path Forward
The convergence of the Supreme Court’s order, federal budget pledges, and Gandaki’s new law leaves the government with a clear, interconnected to-do list:
Publish the Rules and Timeline: Draft the court-mandated regulations immediately, confirm the date the order was received, and release a public schedule for implementation.
Align Federal and Provincial Laws: Review the 1976 Act for necessary parliamentary amendments and establish clear jurisdictional boundaries with Gandaki and other provinces.
Build Institutional Capacity: Establish a competent licensing authority backed by trained inspectors, testing laboratories, and rigorous tracking systems.
Protect Farmers and Public Health: Conduct market feasibility studies, launch controlled pilot programs, and involve farmers, doctors, and researchers in designing the final framework.
These tasks cannot be tackled piecemeal. Licensing without enforcement invites diversion; encouraging cultivation without market research endangers farmers; and provincial laws without federal alignment guarantee legal gridlock.
Nepal does not need another committee to study the potential of cannabis. It needs published regulations, clear institutional accountability, and a transparent timeline. The Supreme Court has laid down the mandate—now the government must prove it is willing to govern.
