Nepal’s Supreme Court has ordered producers and distributors to take back a specific share of the plastic, bottle, can, and packaging waste they release into the market. The full text of the directive was made public on Friday.
The court also instructed the government to make waste management a national priority and immediately issue an integrated waste management directive, making source separation, reuse, and recycling mandatory.
The joint bench of Justices Hari Prasad Fuyal and Balkrishna Dhakal issued the order in response to a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha. The directive was sent to the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Urban Development, the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Kathmandu Metropolitan City.
Extended Producer Responsibility and Governance
The court specifically called for a legal provision, known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), to compel companies producing and distributing items like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, beer cans, PET bottles, plastic bags, and various packaging materials to collect a specific share of their waste. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ordered the formation of a permanent Central Waste Management Coordination Committee, to be led by the Ministry of Urban Development, to oversee waste management efforts. It also directed the government to prepare an integrated waste management directive that mandates source separation of organic and inorganic waste, as well as reuse and recycling, and to disseminate it to all local levels.
The court emphasised that waste management should not be limited to local levels but requires legal and institutional structures to ensure coordination among the federal, provincial, and local governments. The order also called for necessary implementation units, human resources, budget allocation, and monitoring mechanisms.
Infrastructure and Constitutional Rights
The directive instructed the government to complete the upgrade of roads leading to the Bancharedanda landfill site, leachate treatment facilities, and other infrastructure within the stipulated time. It also ordered the implementation of agreements made with local residents of the landfill area regarding education, health, employment, and compensation. The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to ensure necessary security for waste transportation, while the government was asked to allocate sufficient budget for the construction of treatment plants, compost plants, and transfer stations. The court also encouraged public-private partnerships (PPP) to attract private sector investment for waste-to-energy projects and the promotion of a circular economy.
The Supreme Court clarified that essential sanitation services cannot be halted due to political disagreements or jurisdictional misunderstandings, stating such actions violate constitutional rights to live with dignity and in a clean and healthy environment. The court also noted that Nepal must implement international treaties and conventions related to waste management, such as the Basel Convention, highlighting these as binding legal duties. It cited India’s Solid Waste Management Rules and practices adopted in Delhi as examples.
Background and Future Steps
Senior Advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha filed the writ petition after Kathmandu Metropolitan City stopped collecting waste from areas including Singha Durbar, the President’s Office (Sheetal Niwas), and the Prime Minister’s Residence (Balawatar) on Chaitra 24, 2079 (BS). Following the petition, the Supreme Court issued an interim order on Baisakh 8, 2080 (BS), to resume waste collection within three days. The Supreme Court had previously issued various orders to advance waste management on a ‘war footing’ and to ban plastic bags. More recently, on Bhadra 29, 2083 (September 29, 2026), the Supreme Court issued a mandamus order to fully ban the use of plastic thinner than 40 microns and to effectively implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) provisions, setting a recovery and recycling target of at least 50 percent.
Shrestha has urged the government to immediately implement the Supreme Court’s order, noting that despite the Waste Management Act, 2068, being in effect for a decade and a half, source separation has not been effectively implemented. He warned that if the order remains merely on paper, citizens’ right to a clean environment will remain a mere declaration. Shrestha stated he would pursue implementation through the Directorate of Judicial Execution and seek legal remedies for contempt of court if necessary.
The Supreme Court has mandated that progress reports on the implementation of waste management orders be submitted to the Directorate of Judicial Execution every three months. Additionally, progress reports on the implementation of the plastic ban will now be submitted every six months.
Unanswered Questions
The exact date when the full text of the order by Justices Hari Prasad Fuyal and Balkrishna Dhakal was made public is not definitively known, with the source article only stating ‘Friday’. Further information on the current status of the permanent Central Waste Management Coordination Committee, the progress of road upgrades and leachate treatment at the Bancharedanda landfill site, and the implementation of agreements with local residents is also not yet available.
