Between Mandate and Practice: Evaluating Performance of Nepal’s National Human Rights Commission (2015-2025)

Abstract

Human rights are universal and inherent entitlements of all human beings. National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) play a critical role in promoting and protecting these rights at the domestic level. Their legitimacy is derived from constitutional or statutory mandates and is assessed against internationally recognized standards, particularly the Paris Principles adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993. This article examines the gap between the constitutional mandate and the practical performance of Nepal’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in safeguarding human rights between 2015 to 2025. Employing a qualitative doctrinal design based on secondary data, including constitutional provisions, institutional reports, legal frameworks, accreditation assessments, and scholarly literature, the study evaluates the NHRC’s effectiveness against the international benchmarks set by the Paris Principles. The findings indicate that although the NHRC holds a strong constitutional mandate and formal institutional independence, its effectiveness remains constrained by political interference, limited resources, and weak enforcement of its recommendations. The persistently low rate of recommendation enforcement reflects a broader accountability deficit within Nepal’s governance system. The article argues that the disconnect between normative commitments and practical outcomes undermines institutional legitimacy and public trust. It concludes that strengthening institutional autonomy, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability frameworks is essential for enhancing human rights protection in Nepal.