Full equality vs status quo

Nepal’s Citizenship Act (Second Amendment) yet to guarantee gender justice

Jul 5, 2025Opinion

The news headlines this week said: ‘The House of Representatives passed the Nepal Citizenship (Second Amendment) Bill that now makes acquiring citizenship through the mother as equal as through the father.’

Could it really be true? There is genuine confusion or deliberate misunderstanding in the public about the Bill. Here is an explainer:

What is the Bill?

The Second Amendment to the Nepal Citizenship Act 2006 was tabled by the government on 11 March, 2024. The lengthy list of amendments underwent a detailed discussion within the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the HoR which presented a shortened list of agreed amendments.

The HoR passed this amended list of amendments on 28 June. While the original Bill contained eight amendment proposals, only three major amendments were presented by the Committee, and approved by the HoR.

Has it become law now?

No. It is yet to be passed by the National Assembly and endorsed by the President.

What exactly is contained in the amendments?

Addition to Section 5 of the Act: ‘For citizenship applications, a father’s identity is deemed unknown if the applicant and their mother both provide a self-declaration stating that the father is unidentified, as per Section 5, even if his name is listed on the person’s birth registration, educational qualifications, or other certificates, yet his other identity is not available and is currently out of contact.’

This simply provides a definition to what the Act means by ‘father unidentified’ or ‘father untraceable’. Section 5 derives its authority from Article 11(5) of the Constitution that grants citizenship by descent to children whose mother is a Nepali citizen, but father is unidentified or untraceable.

The Nepal Citizenship Act 2006 and Regulation 2006 (both promulgated prior to the present 2015 Constitution) was amended in 2023 to incorporate the provisions of the new Constitution. In doing so, it included the procedural rule requiring both the applicant and their mother to sign a self-declaration form.

The result: a lot of people who claimed citizenship under this provision were still denied access, simply because their educational or other documents mentioned the name or address or some information about their father. The officials interpreted the presence of such information as father’s identity being known and assumed the applicants were hiding facts.

Read also: No state for women, Neha Gurung

The Supreme Court in one of such cases had clearly interpreted the meaning of ‘father unidentified’. In its overarching decision, the court stated the following:

‘It seems neither lawful nor just to compel an individual to accept someone as an identified father merely because their biological father’s name, surname, or address is claimed to be known or mentioned in educational or other documents. It would be just to consider the father’s identity as “unidentified”; if the individual has not received paternal affection or care, and the alleged father has never taken any responsibility, borne any obligation, or been physically present before the children, leading to a situation where the children haven’t even seen their face. Such an alleged biological father should remain “unidentified” for these children until they formally acknowledge them as their son or daughter, or, in their absence, their family provides reasonable proof to confirm the fact and identifies the relationship through a process acceptable to the children, or until such a confirmation becomes impossible.’

Based on this decision, multiple implementation challenges, and growing advocacy around this concern, the government included the above-mentioned addition in the Bill.

Is it new?

The proposed addition is neither an introduction of the new right, nor does it provide anything beyond what the Constitution mandates. Since the Constitution itself uses the term ‘father untraceable or unidentified’, the most a legislation can do is to ensure that the constitutional provisions are interpreted and implemented in its true meaning. Therefore, the current Bill only serves to clarify the existing misinterpretation of the phrase ‘father unidentified’.

In a country where about 17% of the population are single mothers, this clarification may provide certain relief for those whose fathers name was mentioned in the document and the father is now unidentified. However, the addition does not grant anything new.

The gender discriminatory citizenship where the citizenship or legal identity of a person is always dependent on one’s husband or father still remains.

Additionally, the current addition does not completely incorporate the Supreme Court’s decision which is broader and more comprehensive, requiring that the father be considered unidentified irrespective of the knowledge of the father’s name, surname and address, if the applicant/person has not felt the paternal affection or care, and the alleged father has never taken any responsibility, or borne any obligation or been physically present before the children.

The Bill only takes ‘father’s name’ into consideration. It does not recognize the mention of surname or address in the applicant’s certificates, nor the absence of emotional and physical presence, and responsibility in their life.

2. Addition to Section 18 of the Act:

i. Unless otherwise provided in this Act, a person dissatisfied with an order or decision made by an official under this Act may file a petition with the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs within thirty-five days from the date of such order, through the District Administration Office or directly through Nepal Government.

ii. Upon receiving the report pursuant to sub-section (1), the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs shall (must) issue their decision or order after obtaining the report from the official who issued the order or made the decision, within 30 days from the date of appeal, and such decision or order made by them shall be final.’

This provision is already present in the Act itself, and the Bill simply amends or adds the parts that are in bold letters. The positive part is that it makes the right to redress mandatory. Meaning, it not only ensures the right to appeal against the unsatisfactory decisions made by the local authorities, but also the right to receive the decision.

Earlier, it depended on the government's discretion to hear the appeal, but if this amendment is passed, it now becomes the State's obligation to ensure this as a due process of law.

This makes it easier for individuals denied citizenship, by the Chief District Office (CDO), to register an appeal in the higher office, which is the Home Ministry. However, in cases concerning a certain category of naturalised citizenship that falls under the jurisdiction of the Home Ministry, its decision becomes final and cannot be appealed.

This means that Nepal has two categories of naturalised citizenship. One that falls under the jurisdiction of CDO, such as naturalised citizenship to foreign women via marriage relationship. Another that falls under the jurisdiction of the Home Ministry, such as naturalised citizenship to persons born to Nepali mother and foreign father or foreigners who intend to acquire citizenship via stay requirement.

While the former can be appealed if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the official, the former, which is the government's decision, cannot be appealed.

3. Addition of Section 22(a) to the Act: ‘Shall provide a minor’s identity card to a person who is under 16 years of age, if either mother or father is a Nepali citizen.’

This provision can be considered as a positive extension of the child’s constitutional right. The Constitution of Nepal in Article 39 (1) states that ‘every child shall have the right to name and birth registration along with his or her identity’. The current Bill extends this right to a minor's ID card.

However, a minor ID card does not guarantee a citizenship certificate, which in Nepal, a person is eligible to apply only at the age of 16. This means: even though the child has the minor’s ID card and perhaps also a passport based on it, while applying for citizenship at the age of 16 or beyond, the person is bound by citizenship laws — which as we have seen is heavily dependent on the father's identity.

The conclusion?

The current amendment does not ensure any dramatic legal reform nor ensure a complete gender equality in nationality laws, simply because it technically and legally cannot.

When the Constitution itself uses gendered language such as ‘mother’, ‘father', ‘Nepali citizen man’, and ‘foreign citizen woman’, a legislation cannot override it. Nevertheless, recent amendments to the Act, including the first amendment, shows the government’s leniency towards gender equal citizenship laws.

Additionally, Article 49 of the Constitution also recognises equal lineage right of women, meaning that the family descent is legally recognised to be carried on by both genders. Hopefully in the nearest future, Nepal will carry this same principle to shape its citizenship law as well.

A transformative reform by ensuring gender equal nationality rights through constitutional amendment is still possible. Nepal, a member state to the CEDAW and CRC, is still in the list of 24 countries in the world that have gender unequal citizenship laws. It has the obligation as well as potentiality to become a pioneer in recognizing women’s equal rights to confer citizenship to their children and spouse in par with men.

Neha Gurung is a human rights lawyer dedicated to advocating for equal citizenship rights, and co-founder of the Citizenship Affected People's Network. A Fulbright scholar, Gurung obtained LLM from the Washington College of Law.