Plural Legalities in the Shadow of the Himalayas: Re-evaluating Constitutional Federalism and Indigenous Customary Jurisprudence in Post-Transition Nepal

Abstract

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution restructured the state into federal, provincial, and local levels while affirming inclusion, cultural rights, and pluralism. Yet constitutional recognition does not automatically confer jurisdictional authority on Indigenous legal orders. This article examines the tension between Nepal’s federal architecture and customary institutions, focusing on constitutional competence, dispute settlement, customary tenure, and Indigenous-rights standards. It develops “topographical jurisprudence” as an analytical framework for investigating how terrain, mobility, resource ecologies, and place-based relationships shape legal orders. The analysis finds that Nepal’s constitutional design creates openings for local self-government but does not establish a system of co-equal Indigenous jurisdiction. Local judicial committees are statutory bodies and should not be conflated with customary institutions such as Tharu Badghar or Bhalmansa systems. The history of Kipat tenure shows that land governance cannot be reduced to a contrast between custom and state law: customary rights have changed through state-building, markets, and contested claims. The article argues for rights-based legal coordination combining consultation, protection of collective tenure, remedies, procedural safeguards, and internal accountability. Topography is treated not as a deterministic cause of autonomy, but as a condition through which jurisdiction is negotiated. The article contributes a framework for evaluating plural constitutionalism in Nepal and settings.