- Nepal's Supreme Court ordered the federal government to establish regulations for medicinal and industrial cannabis cultivation within a strict three-month deadline.
- Gandaki Province's independent passage of cannabis legislation has forced Kathmandu to coordinate federal and provincial laws to prevent legal chaos.
- The ruling requires tight supervision for legitimate economic opportunities while keeping illegal trade and recreational use firmly in check.
- Government must now create licensing bodies and quality standards to ensure international compliance and protect small-scale farmers.
Kathmandu, Nepal: For decades, cannabis reform in Nepal has been trapped in a cycle of political promises, budget speeches, and stalled parliamentary debates. Successive governments have readily praised the crop’s economic potential, yet they have repeatedly failed to build a legal framework for regulated production.
Now, two major developments have forced the federal government’s hand. Nepal’s Supreme Court has ordered authorities to draft regulations for the controlled cultivation of cannabis for medicinal, scientific, and industrial uses. At the same time, Gandaki Province has passed its own legislation to regulate production, leaving Kathmandu with little room to delay.
While these moves add welcome momentum, they also introduce a crucial distinction that must not be lost in the excitement: the Supreme Court has not legalized recreational cannabis, nor has it opened the door to unrestricted farming. Instead, the court is demanding a tightly supervised system that unlocks legitimate economic and medical opportunities while keeping illegal trade firmly in check.
A Long-Overdue Legal Push
The judicial push began with a writ petition from advocate Saroj Adhikari and others, who challenged the state’s decades-long inaction. On May 18, 2025, a division bench of Justices Nahakul Subedi and Til Prasad Shrestha ruled in their favor, with the full verdict made public on November 1, 2026.
The ruling gives the government a strict three-month deadline from receiving the formal order to establish rules governing licensing, cultivation, processing, storage, distribution, and trade. More pointedly, the justices questioned why authorities had ignored their existing power to write these rules under the Narcotic Drugs (Control) Act of 1976 (2033 BS).
While that 1976 law broadly bans cannabis, it always contained provisions allowing regulated activities under state supervision. Because the government never bothered to draft the accompanying regulations, farmers, researchers, and entrepreneurs have been left in legal limbo—where unauthorized growing remains a crime, and legitimate enterprise is impossible. The court’s order shifts the burden from vague policy talk to concrete execution, requiring Kathmandu to immediately clarify which ministries will take the lead and when the rules will take effect.
Breaking a Cycle of Empty Promises
This judicial intervention stands in sharp contrast to Nepal’s recent political track record. In 2020, lawmaker Sher Bahadur Tamang introduced a private member's bill to overhaul cannabis laws, only for it to stall. Four years later, the federal budget for fiscal year 2024/25 pledged to create legal pathways for commercial medicinal cannabis—an announcement that generated headlines but zero regulatory progress.
As the court implicitly recognized, a line item in a budget speech does not protect a farmer from arrest or give an investor legal certainty. Furthermore, the justices wisely separated industrial and medicinal regulation from the broader, more contentious debate over recreational use, urging wide public consultation on the latter. Kathmandu cannot afford to let political arguments over recreational marijuana derail the immediate, practical work required to regulate medicine and industry.
The Federal-Provincial Friction
While the federal government dragged its feet, Gandaki Province decided to move ahead on its own. In July 2026, the Gandaki Provincial Assembly passed a bill allowing cannabis cultivation for medicinal and industrial use. Although Province Chief Dilli Raj Bhatta initially returned the bill on July 24 over concerns that it might clash with federal law, the assembly passed it a second time without changes on July 31, leading to its authentication on August 3.
Gandaki’s law outlines a provincial licensing system, designated farming zones, and monitoring mechanisms, though it still requires detailed rules before a single license can be issued. More importantly, it highlights an impending jurisdictional headache. Without coordinated action, farmers and investors could soon find themselves caught between provincial permits and federal police enforcement. To prevent legal chaos, Kathmandu must sit down with Gandaki and other provinces to align national standards with constitutional boundaries.
Balancing Economic Hope with Global Rules
As Nepal designs this system, it cannot operate in a vacuum; its domestic rules must align with international treaties. Under the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, countries are permitted to allow cannabis cultivation for medical and scientific purposes under strict state supervision, while industrial fiber and seed are exempt from those specific controls. Meeting these global standards will require a transparent, seed-to-sale tracking system, rigorous lab testing, and airtight safeguards against diversion to the black market.
If done right, the economic payoff could be substantial, opening doors in textiles, construction materials, oils, and pharmaceuticals while bringing new income to rural communities. Yet legalization is not a silver bullet for rural poverty or abandoned farmland. Encouraging farmers to plant cannabis without securing reliable buyers, processing plants, and market access would simply set them up for financial ruin. Furthermore, the licensing structure must be designed to include small-scale farmers and local cooperatives, ensuring the emerging industry is not monopolized by a handful of wealthy corporations.
Keeping Public Health in Focus
In the rush to capture economic value, public health cannot be treated as an afterthought. Heavy cannabis use carries real risks—particularly for young people—including dependency and impaired memory and coordination.
Any credible framework must draw a hard line between non-intoxicating industrial hemp, regulated medicine, and high-potency intoxicating products. That means enforcing strict THC limits, mandating clear product labeling, banning aggressive advertising, and restricting medicinal cannabis to proper prescriptions. Just as importantly, the government must educate both the public and local law enforcement so that licensed farmers are not treated like criminals, and the public does not mistake controlled farming for a free-for-all.
Turning the Verdict into Action
Together, the Supreme Court’s directive and Gandaki’s bold legislation give Nepal a rare window to get cannabis policy right. To seize it, the federal government needs to move on four fronts simultaneously:
Start drafting immediately: Confirm receipt of the court order, publish a transparent timeline, and begin writing the rules without delay.
Harmonize the laws: Review federal and provincial statutes to eliminate contradictions, and amend the 1976 Act if necessary.
Build the institutions: Establish a dedicated licensing body, train inspectors, and equip testing laboratories capable of monitoring the supply chain.
Protect the stakeholders: Launch controlled pilot programs and consult directly with farmers, doctors, and scientists before scaling up.
These steps only work if they happen together. Issuing licenses without oversight invites illegal trafficking; encouraging harvests without buyers hurts farmers; and letting provinces go their own way breeds legal confusion. Nepal has had enough political speeches about the promise of cannabis. The Supreme Court has handed the government a clear mandate—now it is time to deliver.
