In a landmark decision on federal power sharing, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench has clarified how authority over forests is divided between the federal and provincial governments, declaring parts of the Forest Act 2076 unconstitutional.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by the Madhesh Province government after the federal government decided to merge the Sagarnath Forest Development Project into the Timber Corporation of Nepal under Nepal Forest Corporation Limited. Madhesh had earlier decided to bring the project under its control and had allocated a budget for its protection, arguing that forest management within the province falls under its jurisdiction.
The court concluded that while the federal government has exclusive authority to formulate national forest policy, the management of national forests within a province lies within the executive authority of that province. It found that certain provisions in the Forest Act allowed federal authorities to appoint divisional forest officers and exercise administrative and quasi-judicial powers in areas that constitutionally fall under provincial control. Such arrangements, the court ruled, weakened provincial executive powers and went against the spirit of federalism.
However, the court dismissed a separate petition challenging the Cabinet’s decision to merge the Sagarnath project, stating that the move involved restructuring management rather than changing ownership and concerned a matter of federal importance.
The bench emphasised that Nepal’s Constitution envisions cooperative federalism based on coordination and coexistence, not competition between levels of government. It has directed the federal government to issue a national forest policy promptly and review existing laws to ensure they align with constitutional provisions and respect provincial authority.