Recommendation to Establish a Dedicated Fast-Track Infrastructure Bench to Prevent Delays in Project Implementation Due to Judicial Processes

May 15, Kathmandu – To halt delays in project implementation caused by judicial proceedings, the formation of a ‘Dedicated Fast-Track Infrastructure Bench and Adjudication System’ has been recommended.

Under governance reforms approved by the Council of Ministers on March 26, 2026, concerning the implementation of 100 agenda items, the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs established a committee aimed at swiftly and efficiently resolving cases related to infrastructure development projects that fall under the judiciary.

In alignment with a ministerial decision, a high-level committee, chaired by the ministry’s secretary, has submitted its report to the government.

The committee’s report recommends appointing a separate fast-track infrastructure bench comprising expert judges for petitions concerning land acquisition, compensation determination, and contract processes linked to infrastructure projects pending before the Supreme Court or High Court.

This bench would be mandated to conclude hearings and proceedings within 60 days from the date the petition is filed, establishing a clear timeline for effective judicial resolution.

For Supreme Court cases, it is proposed that the Chief Justice oversees this bench, and for High Court cases, justices appointed by the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice will supervise it. The committee also suggests that ongoing monitoring mechanisms be established to ensure compliance with the 60-day timeline. The infrastructure bench is advised to be constituted from a pool of expert judges specialized in the relevant fields.

Recommendation for Infrastructure Adjudication to Conclude Cases Within Three Months

The committee concluded that the chronic obstruction of infrastructure projects is a serious issue, causing damages worth billions.

According to the committee, hundreds of projects nationwide remain stalled for years due to pending litigation, depriving the public of essential services.

The current judicial structure experiences significant delays in resolving technical and complex construction disputes, leading to halted development projects, increased costs, and adverse effects on communities, the committee noted.

To ensure uninterrupted development, public interest prioritization, and quick and effective justice delivery, the committee recommends establishing an Infrastructure Adjudication Council.

This specialized body, composed of expert judges with technical expertise, would be tasked with resolving disputes within three months, covering conflicts among project partners, bank guarantees, and matters under the arbitration law.

The adjudication system is also proposed to handle disputes arising from public procurement, public-private partnerships, and conflicts involving contractors, consultants, suppliers, workforce, and local communities.

It should also address issues related to construction material excavation, maintenance, operational responsibilities, right of way, royalty distribution, and project operational status.

The Infrastructure Adjudication Council would be chaired by a High Court judge and include experienced specialist members and engineering experts.

The committee has also recommended creating legal and institutional frameworks to decide infrastructure-related cases within two months.

For matters involving land acquisition, property evaluation, and compensation determination, the lower courts should fast-track the process to ensure decisions within two months of filing, with the same timeframe applying to appeals.

Orientation Programs for Judges on Infrastructure Projects

The committee highlighted the need for orientation programs to educate judges about aspects of development project disputes, ensuring they understand all stakeholders and uphold the effectiveness of timely service delivery.

Suggestions were made to amend the Public Procurement Act, Civil Procedure Code, and Arbitration Act to support this initiative.

Additional amendments to the Judicial Administration Act, Summary Procedure Act, Civil Procedure Code Regulations, and Court Rules were also recommended to strengthen effectiveness.

Ensuring Project Work Continues Amid Litigation

The committee proposed principles to allow projects to continue despite ongoing litigation, including escrow accounts for disputed funds, enforcing a no-clearance-no-tender policy, establishing onsite dispute resolution boards, and timely arbitration mechanisms.

They also suggested implementing legal grounds for testing public interest, re-tendering long-delayed projects, ensuring accountability, and promoting digital monitoring and transparency.

Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, 2017, were recommended to ensure full text of decisions is made available within 21 days, restrict undue postponements of hearings, and allow only those with a genuine stake to be named as respondents.

Key Issues Highlighted by the Committee

·       Delays in project commencement due to ongoing litigation

·       Problems caused by interim court orders

·       Delays in resolving project-related cases in the fast-track system

·       Prevalent practice of seeking remedy through writ jurisdiction without proper dispute settlement mechanisms specified in contracts

·       Lack of accountability towards general public interests