The incumbent Home Minister deserves recognition for initiating the long-overdue amendments to the Nepal Police Act and the Armed Police Force (APF) Act. Although Nepal was never colonized, its Police Act of 1955 fundamentally adopted a colonial-style policing framework. Throughout various political transformations—from the Rana autocratic regime, monarchy with single-party Panchayat era, multiparty democratic system, to the current federal republican system—some cosmetic amendments have taken place. However, the Act has largely retained its core elements as a state-controlled, repressive tool.
The proposed bills have sparked considerable discussion regarding their overall content, implications for police institutions and broader impact on law enforcement. While public debate has been limited, emerging discussions are encouraging, with growing support for a people-oriented, service-focused, professional and accountable police service. Given Nepal’s institutionalization of three tiers of government, this legislation must provide a strong foundation for law enforcement, clearly defining the scope, authority, and operational framework necessary for effective policing. Lawmakers have proposed 52 amendments by 74 parliamentarians (including ruling party Chief Whips) to refine the Nepal Police bill and 65 amendments by 101 parliamentarians to refine the APF bill, ensuring both bills complement the essence of the constitutional provisions of broader human security.
Addressing Authoritarian Policing
For both services to evolve into modern law enforcement agencies, the bills must eliminate remnants of state-focused, authoritarian policing. Institutional culture should shift from rigid hierarchical obedience (mathiko adesh palana garnera, laiarayeko kaam garne i.e. following orders without question) to a professional, community service-oriented model. The police should operate with integrity and efficiency, ensuring public trust. Parliamentarians must engage constructively with the proposed amendments, aligning them with Nepal’s broader vision of modernizing outdated institutional frameworks and enhancing professional and ethical policing standards.
Clarifying the Roles of Nepal Police and APF
Amid discussions on the bills, some factions appear to be fueling unnecessary discord between the Nepal Police and the APF. The notion that the Nepal Police is dissatisfied with the reassignment of core responsibilities to the APF seems to be a manufactured narrative intended to create friction. While the APF was originally established with specific objectives, its role needs reassessment to align with contemporary security needs. Parliament must engage with experts and stakeholders to clearly define the mandates of both institutions, ensuring they are safeguarded from political interference and operational ambiguities.
The bills should guarantee the independence of the Inspector General’s office in both institutions, allowing them to execute their responsibilities without undue influence. The Home Ministry is responsible for setting policing priorities, ensuring financial and logistical support and holding the Inspector General accountable for delivering professional, efficient and effective services. However, imposing excessive compliance expectations, as outlined in the proposed draft bills, may hinder professionals from exercising independent judgment, ultimately undermining their role and contributing to the breakdown of the rule of law. The bills must clearly state functional autonomy for the police, along with a robust oversight mechanism.
Distinguishing Law Enforcement from Paramilitary Functions
The Nepal Police and the APF share fundamental responsibilities but differ in their operational approaches. The Nepal Police primarily functions as a community-centric institution, engaging with the public to ensure safety, security, and social stability. The APF, on the other hand, operates as a paramilitary unit with military-style training, equipment and tactics. This overlap blurs the distinction between civil policing and military enforcement, contradicting democratic principles that position law enforcement as a public service rather than a repressive force. Deploying paramilitary forces for domestic law enforcement should be a last resort, as excessive militarization can undermine civil liberties, as seen in many troubled nations.
Addressing Ambiguities in the Draft Bills
Several ambiguities in the draft bills require urgent clarification. One such issue is VIP security, currently designated as a responsibility for both institutions, alongside the Nepal Army. This overlap raises accountability concerns—if a security lapse occurs, which agency will be held responsible? Similarly, provisions on crowd and riot control must be explicitly defined to prevent operational confusion. The APF should intervene only when a situation escalates beyond the capacity of the Nepal Police.
Another point of contention is the APF’s role in addressing organized and transnational crimes under the pretext of border control. The UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, to which Nepal is a signatory, clearly defines crime categories and provisions for specialized intervention capabilities. With clear definitions of organized and transnational crimes already established under national law and existing capacities in place, the provisions allowing the APF to conduct preliminary investigations, detain suspects, and engage in covert operations, as outlined in the proposed bill, could lead to jurisdictional conflicts. Such provisions require careful reconsideration to prevent overreach.
Strengthening Disaster Response and Rescue Operations
With Nepal’s increasing vulnerability to climate change-induced natural disasters and unregulated urbanization, the APF must be equipped and trained for disaster response. Their role in mountain and high-altitude rescue operations is also vital, given Nepal’s adventure tourism industry. Currently, private entities dominate this sector, often compromising safety and efficiency. By positioning the APF as a leading agency in high-altitude rescue operations, Nepal can enhance its reputation as a safe destination for adventure tourism and continue attracting high-profile adventure seekers in abundance.
Service Conditions
Furthermore, all personnel must have equal rights and uniform service conditions. A very positive aspect of the proposal is the abolition of the 30-year service tenure limit. This should not be viewed as an incentive or political favor, especially since other security agencies are not bound by similar provisions. Law enforcement officers operate under extreme conditions, facing high rates of fatalities, physical disabilities, and psychosocial challenges. Addressing their well-being and professional growth must be a priority. While police service cannot be equated with other civil services, it should be recognized that police officers are also human beings and should not be subjected to being on duty 24 hours a day.
Conclusion
Nepal’s transition to democracy demands a policing model that prioritizes human security over political control. Politicians who once fought against autocratic rule must recognize that effective law enforcement is not about suppressing political activity but about safeguarding citizens' rights and well-being. The responsible executives of both institutions must collaboratively resolve operational ambiguities instead of pursuing institutional agendas unilaterally or clandestinely advocating changes that undermine broader democratic and human rights ideals.
Nepal’s prolific human rights bodies, including the National Human Rights Commission, must actively engage with the bills to ensure that Nepal’s law enforcement services evolve into rights-sensitive institutions, both in principle and practice. These bodies should serve as curative in the first instance rather than purely punitive. Reforming the police requires a proactive approach—preventing systemic failures rather than reacting to crises. While an ambiguous and fundamentally flawed bill should concern all citizens, it is ironically being labeled as the concern of a handful of ex-police officers. A constructive debate is the need of the hour.