Govt panel proposes ‘Fast-track infra benches’ and special tribunal to end court delays in development projects

KATHMANDU: A government-formed study committee has recommended the establishment of dedicated “Fast-Track Infrastructure Benches” and a specialized “Infrastructure Tribunal” to prevent development projects from becoming entangled in prolonged court disputes that often delay implementation for years and impose billions of rupees in additional costs on the state.

The recommendations are part of the “Study Report on Reforms Required for the Expedited Resolution of Court Cases Related to Infrastructure Construction and Development Projects, 2083 BS”, prepared by a committee led by the Law Secretary.

The report concludes that Nepal requires a legal framework to ensure that court cases linked to infrastructure and development projects are resolved within a maximum of 60 days, aiming to reduce chronic delays in national projects.

Dedicated Fast-Track Benches Proposed

The committee has recommended amending the rules governing the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Courts to establish separate Dedicated Fast-Track Infrastructure Benches for development-related disputes.

Under the proposal, writ petitions related to land acquisition, compensation determination, contract procurement, and public procurement disputes would be required to undergo hearings and receive verdicts within 60 days of filing.

The report also recommends assigning judges with subject-matter expertise in infrastructure and development issues to such benches to improve efficiency and consistency in judicial decisions.

According to the report, hundreds of development projects across Nepal remain stalled due to pending court cases, resulting in cost overruns, procurement disputes, declining trust in contractors, and disruptions in public service delivery.

Two-Month Timeline for Sensitive Cases

For sensitive disputes involving land acquisition and compensation, the committee has proposed that lower courts should issue verdicts within two months of case registration.

Similarly, appeals related to such cases should be automatically prioritized and resolved within another two months, ensuring final legal certainty without prolonged litigation.

The report stresses that delays in infrastructure-related litigation unnecessarily increase the state’s financial liabilities and hamper economic progress.

“When a project stops, the pace of development stops,” the report states.

Proposal for Specialized Infrastructure Tribunal

To address technically complex disputes in construction and infrastructure, the committee has also proposed establishing a separate Infrastructure Tribunal chaired by a High Court judge.

The tribunal would include experts from project management, finance, and engineering sectors, enabling technically informed decisions on major disputes involving infrastructure execution.

The report further recommends granting the tribunal special jurisdictional authority to accelerate dispute resolution and reduce burdens on conventional courts.

‘No Full Halt’ Principle for Development Projects

Among the report’s major recommendations is the adoption of a “continuity of work principle,” under which projects would not be entirely halted even while legal disputes remain under consideration.

The committee also proposed:

• Maintaining disputed payments in escrow accounts
• Implementing a “No Clearance, No Tender” policy
• Establishing project-level dispute resolution boards
• Introducing a time-bound arbitration mechanism for faster settlements

Additionally, the report recommends legally institutionalizing a public interest test in infrastructure-related litigation, creating clear legal provisions for re-tendering long-stalled projects, strengthening accountability, and improving digital monitoring and transparency.

Judicial Reforms Also Recommended

The committee has proposed amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, 2017 (2074 BS) requiring courts to publish the full text of verdicts within 21 days.

It also suggests legal measures to prevent unnecessary hearing postponements by lawyers or litigants and recommends limiting defendants in cases only to genuine concerned parties to avoid procedural delays.

To ensure accountability, the report proposes a monitoring mechanism under which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chief Judges of High Courts would regularly review whether verdicts are being delivered within the prescribed timelines.

The recommendations come amid growing concerns that judicial delays are significantly affecting Nepal’s infrastructure development, increasing project costs, discouraging investment, and slowing public service delivery.