National Integrity Policy 2083 seeks to unify scattered integrity rules; enforcement is unclear
Approved by the cabinet on 2 July and published by the Nepal Law Commission in September, the policy diagnoses familiar governance failures. Its effect will depend on laws and budgets that do not yet exist.
In this article
The Nepal Law Commission, the government body that maintains official texts of Nepali law, published the National Integrity Policy, 2083 on its website on 22 September (6 Asoj 2083 BS). The Council of Ministers had approved the policy at its meeting on Thursday 2 July, together with the National Advertising Policy, 2083. The policy was brought by the government led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah, according to Ratopati.
English-language media have referred to it both as the National Integrity Policy and the National Ethics Policy. The Nepali title is Rashtriya Sadachar Niti.
What the policy says
Ratopati reported that the policy’s vision is “good governance and prosperity through an integrity-based society”. It aims to set standards of conduct for government and public bodies, private and non-governmental organisations, and political parties. Its main objectives include:
- making public officials more responsible and transparent;
- making public services citizen-friendly, transparent, accountable and results-oriented;
- bringing scattered laws, policies and institutional arrangements into a single integrity system with clear goals, standards, implementation structures and monitoring;
- narrowing the gap between policy and implementation so that rules apply equally and fairly to everyone.
Its strategies include strengthening the capacity, resources, autonomy and technology of regulatory, investigative and monitoring bodies; moving decision-making from discretion towards systems; using digital tools to expand transparency and open government; and building a clear accountability framework with both penalties and incentives.
An unusually frank diagnosis
The policy is candid about what has gone wrong. It acknowledges that decisions are often driven by discretion, self-interest or pressure rather than impartial application of the law; that regulatory and investigative bodies lack capacity and resources; that unclear and overlapping roles cause delay; that accountability is weak and impunity is growing; and that conflicts of interest are common and citizen participation limited. It concludes that past efforts have been “fragmented, uncoordinated, and often reactive or ad-hoc in nature”.
That diagnosis matters because it is the government’s own. But a list of problems is not a programme, and the policy, as reported, does not itself say which existing laws would be consolidated, which bodies would gain new powers, or how progress would be measured.
Questions in the parliamentary committee
When the House of Representatives’ Development, Economic Affairs and Good Governance Committee discussed the policy on Monday 10 August, members across parties questioned how much difference it would make. Samjhana Devkota of the CPN-UML said: “The main thing is not budget, but willpower and commitment.”
Narayan Dutt Bhatta of the Nepali Congress said that because the National Vigilance Centre cannot issue directions to the Prime Minister or ministers, the policy will depend on self-regulation at the top. “Integrity is something that should be seen in speech, words and behaviour,” he said. Bhuwan Bahadur Sunar of the Nepali Communist Party said that “the government’s actions have not yet become fully integrity-friendly and good governance-friendly”, and called for responsible officials to be designated down to ward level.
Policy is not law
A policy is not itself law. It sets the government’s direction and priorities, but it cannot impose binding duties or penalties on anyone; that requires an Act of Parliament or regulations made under one. Criminal action for corruption will continue to run through the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2059 (2002) and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the constitutional anti-corruption body.
The committee discussion pointed to the same gap from a different angle: as Mr Bhatta noted, the National Vigilance Centre cannot direct the Prime Minister or ministers. A policy cannot change that; only legislation can.
What to watch
The policy’s real effect will depend on which of its strategies are turned into laws, regulations and budget programmes, and on whether the bodies it names receive the capacity and autonomy it promises. Points to watch include any bills to consolidate integrity and conflict-of-interest rules, changes to the mandate of oversight bodies, and whether next year’s budget funds implementation. Until then, the policy remains a statement of intent.
Sources
The full text of the policy is available on the Law Commission website. The objectives and strategies quoted here are based on media reports.
Primary sources
- National Integrity (Ethics) Policy, 2083 — Nepal Law Commission, 6 Asoj 2083
Other reporting
- Government Introduces National Integrity Policy 2083 — Ratopati English, 7 Jul 2026
- National Ethics Policy 2083: MPs emphasise behaviour and strong will — Ratopati English, 10 Aug 2026
- Key Decisions from Today’s Cabinet Meeting — ShareSansar, 2 Jul 2026
