Within weeks of assuming office, Nepal’s new Prime Minister Balendra Shah directed security forces to clear informal riverside settlements across Kathmandu Valley. On 25 April, bulldozers rolled into various such locations with a 24-hour notice to vacate. As a result, thousands were rendered homeless, and at least two of those displaced have committed suicide. The drive has since expanded well beyond Kathmandu as the Ministry of Federal Affairs directed all 753 local governments to identify and relocate landless people nationwide. The government has framed this as an effort to ensure the right to housing and provide a lasting solution. This blog argues that such a claim cannot survive legal scrutiny under Nepal’s domestic framework and binding international obligations.

Nepal’s Constitution guarantees the right to housing under Article 37, mandates land provision for landless Dalits under Article 40(5) and requires rehabilitation of marginalised groups under Article 42. The Right to Housing Act 2018 operationalises these protections through Section 5(4), which prohibits evictions that render people homeless without alternative arrangements; and requires genuine prior consultation, verification of landless status, as well as adequate notice.

The Lands Act 1964 separately defines a “landless squatter” as an individual whose family has not owned land anywhere in Nepal and who cannot acquire land through their own or their family’s income or efforts. Section 52(c) provides that informal settlers who have occupied public land for at least ten years may be eligible for land ownership.

Both the Constitution and the Lands Act presuppose verification before eviction.

Nepal is also a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified 14 May 1991). Article 11 recognises the right of everyone to adequate housing. The UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights — in General Comment No. 7 (1997) — established that forced evictions are incompatible with the Covenant [para 1]; that prior genuine consultation, adequate and reasonable notice be given [para 15]; and alternative housing for those unable to provide for themselves are non-derogable requirements [para 16]. Further, Nepal has endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which establishes free, prior and informed consent as a requirement in decisions affecting Indigenous communities.

Of the approximately 1.2 million landless families in Nepal, Dalit and Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected, as documented by Amnesty International’s briefing on forced evictions across Nepal from 2020-24. In every case examined, authorities failed to conduct genuine consultation, provide adequate notice, or ensure resettlement before demolition, disproportionately affecting said communities. The current national drive reproduces this pattern at a larger scale.

So far, the Supreme Court has intervened in three stages. On 27 April 2026, it issued a show-cause order directing the District Administration Office and Kathmandu Metropolitan City to submit written responses, but declined to issue an interim stay. Then, on 5 May 2026, while hearing another writ petition, the Court directed the government to submit within 15 days the legal basis for the evictions, whether procedures under the Right to Housing Act were followed, and what rehabilitation arrangements have been made for affected families including children, older persons, the sick, and persons with disabilities.

Later, on 8 May 2026, a joint bench issued a full interim order barring further evictions without due legal procedure, citing the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights and directing authorities to meet the basic needs of already displaced families. Notably, the interim order came only after major demolitions had already been carried out. As of writing, over 350 families remain in holding centres with no confirmed long-term rehabilitation plan.

The government has also decided to repeal provisions of the Lands Act through ordinance. The removed provisions required verification of landless status before eviction. Repealing them through ordinance, bypassing parliamentary deliberation, and doing so while evictions are actively underway, removes legal protections from people in the middle of displacement rather than building a framework to address landlessness systematically.

In the presence of robust legal frameworks, the legal obligations are in no way ambiguous. They cannot simply be replaced by a Facebook post stating “no citizen will be left homeless”.

Despite Nepal’s legal architecture to address landlessness in a rights-compliant manner, the current eviction drive reveals a deliberate choice to bypass it. The more pressing question now is that of compliance. With 15,361 people already displaced in Kathmandu Valley alone, the government’s obligation has shifted from procedural safeguards before eviction to immediate rehabilitation. Whether that obligation is met will determine whether Nepal’s constitutional housing guarantee retains substantive meaning for the people it was most designed to protect.