NEB Class 12 · Past paper
The complete NEB Class 12 old-course exam paper for Nepali Legal System, all 17 questions with solved model answers.
Tap a question to open its answer.
Give your opinion on the scope and significance of the legal system. / कानून प्रणालीको क्षेत्र र औचित्यताबारे आफ्नो विचार दिनुहोस् ।
The scope of a legal system is very wide. It reaches into almost every relationship in a society. It covers how members of a society deal with one another. It also covers how they deal with the state.
In its scope a legal system covers three big activities. It covers the making of law through the legislature. It covers the interpretation and application of law through the courts. And it covers the enforcement of law through the executive and the police. It governs relations between private individuals, through the civil law of contract, property, and family, as the Muluki Civil Code 2074 does. It governs the relationship between the individual and the state, through constitutional and criminal law, including the Muluki Penal Code 2074. And it regulates the organs of the state themselves, setting the limits within which government must act. Its subject matter is huge. It ranges from the gravest constitutional questions down to everyday deals. Its institutions reach from the Supreme Court down to the local judicial committees that help settle disputes.
A single family's affairs show this breadth. The same legal system governs that family's marriage and divorce. It governs the partition (अंशबण्डा) of its property. It governs the registration of its land. It governs the taxes it pays. It governs the criminal law that protects its members. And it governs the constitutional rights it may assert against the state. All of this at once. The scope of the legal system is as wide as life in society itself.
The significance of a legal system follows from this breadth. First, it is significant because it maintains order and peace. It puts proper rules in place of private force. So disputes end in courts rather than in feuds. Second, it is significant because it protects rights and delivers justice. In Nepal the fundamental rights of Part 3 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 can be enforced in the courts. So the system gives rights a real remedy. For example, a worker denied equal pay can go to court and obtain relief. So can a citizen denied information the Constitution guarantees.
Third, it is significant because it provides certainty. It lets people know in advance what the law demands. Fourth, it limits the power of government. It binds even the state to the rule of law. So an unlawful official act can be struck down. And fifth, it is significant for development. By enforcing contracts and protecting property it gives a secure framework for economic life. Investors and traders rely on that security.
In my opinion, then, the legal system is not merely one institution among many. It is the very framework that makes an ordered and just society possible. A society may have wealth, resources, and people. But without a sound legal system to keep order, protect rights, and restrain power, none of these can be enjoyed in peace. The wide scope of the legal system is matched by a wide significance. It touches the safety, the rights, and the prosperity of every citizen. That is why building and strengthening it, as Nepal has sought to do under the Constitution of Nepal 2015, deserves the first attention of any state.
Describe in brief the major legal systems of the world. / विश्वका कानून प्रणालीहरुको छोटकरीमा व्याख्या गर्नुहोस् ।
Every country has its own legal system. But comparative lawyers group them into a few broad families. Each family shares a common origin and a common style. Grouping them this way helps a student see the main patterns of legal thought in the world. Four families are usually distinguished.
The common law family began in England after 1066. Royal judges built up a law "common" to the whole kingdom. Its hallmark is that it is judge-made. Much of the law lies in decided cases. These cases are held together by the doctrine of binding precedent. Under this doctrine, a higher court's ruling binds the courts below. For example, suppose the highest court lays down a principle once. Every later similar case must then follow it. This gives the law consistency. Its procedure is adversarial. Through the British Empire it reached the United States, India, and many other lands.
The civil law family is the oldest and most widespread. It descends from Roman law and the compilation of Justinian. It was modernised by codes such as the French Napoleonic Code of 1804. Its hallmark is codification. The law is set out in full written codes. The judge applies these codes to the facts. So precedent carries less formal weight. A civil law judge deciding a contract dispute turns first to the relevant article of the code. He does not turn first to earlier judgments.
The socialist law family arose with the Soviet Union after 1917. It stands on Marxist-Leninist foundations. Here law is an instrument of the state. The state uses it to build a classless society. So law is kept below party policy. It stresses state or collective ownership of the means of production. In the Soviet model, for instance, factories and farmland belonged to the state. They were run by central plan, not by private trade.
The religious legal systems take their law from divine revelation and sacred texts. They do not take it from the state. Hindu law rests on the Shruti and Smriti. Islamic law rests on the Quran and the Sunna. Such law is treated as sacred and largely unchanging. It governs chiefly personal and family matters such as marriage and inheritance, as explained by religious scholars.
Nepal's own legal system is a blend of all four. It is codified in the civil law manner, through the Muluki Civil Code 2074 and the Muluki Penal Code 2074. It observes common law precedent, since the interpretation and legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court bind all lower courts under the Constitution of Nepal 2015. It is socialism-oriented, since the Constitution's preamble commits the state to an equitable, exploitation-free society. And it still carries the deep mark of its Hindu religious tradition in its family law. This mixture is exactly why a Nepali law student studies all four families. Each one is visible in the law of Nepal today.
What are the similarities and dissimilarities between the socialist law system and the religious law system? / समाजवादी कानून प्रणाली र धार्मिक कानून प्रणालीका बीच के के समानता र के के असमानताहरु छन् ?
The socialist law system and the religious law system belong to very different worlds. Yet they can be usefully compared. Each one is built on a strong guiding idea that shapes the whole of its law. One rests on a secular, political creed. The other rests on a sacred, spiritual one. Comparing them brings out what gives each family its character.
(a) Similarities. Both are normative systems. Each one lays down binding standards of conduct for the society it governs. Both are value-laden and ideological. Each rests on a single large belief system. For the one it is Marxist ideology. For the other it is religious faith. Each tries to mould society in the image of that belief. So both tend to be comprehensive. They reach deep into everyday life. They do not regulate only narrow legal matters. Both can also be relatively rigid. Questioning the underlying creed is not easily allowed, whether that creed is party doctrine or sacred text. In each system the individual is subordinated to a larger purpose. In the one it is the collective. In the other it is the divine or moral order. For instance, a socialist system puts private interest below the plan of the working-class state. In the same way, a religious system puts personal preference below the commands of the scripture.
(b) Dissimilarities. The clearest difference is in their source. Socialist law flows from the secular will of the state and the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the ruling party. Religious law flows from divine revelation and sacred texts such as the Vedas or the Quran. Their purpose differs too. Socialist law aims at a material, this-worldly goal: a classless and exploitation-free society. Religious law aims at a moral and spiritual order and the salvation of the believer. They differ on changeability. Socialist law can be changed whenever party policy changes. Religious law is divine in origin. So it is treated as permanent and largely beyond human amendment. They differ on property. Socialist law favours state or collective ownership and restricts private property. Religious systems generally recognise private property and regulate its inheritance, as Hindu and Islamic law do in detail. And they differ on authority. Socialist law is interpreted by state and party organs. Religious law is expounded by priests or religious jurists.
A simple contrast makes the point. Take a question of inheritance. A socialist system would ask how the property should be shared to serve collective welfare and reduce inequality. A religious system would ask what the sacred text and its scholars lay down for the believer's heirs. The starting point and the reasoning are wholly different.
In short, the two systems resemble each other in form. Both are all-embracing, value-driven orders. Both place the individual beneath a higher end. But they stand opposed in substance. The one is secular, material, and changeable. The other is sacred, spiritual, and enduring. Nepal's own legal order has felt a measure of both influences. It has a socialism-oriented direction under the Constitution of Nepal 2015, seen in its socio-economic rights and land-reform policy. It also has a deep, long-standing Hindu religious tradition in its family law. This is now carried forward in reformed form in the Muluki Civil Code 2074. So Nepal shows how a single modern legal system can absorb elements from families as different as these two.
Short note: Kotilinga. / छोटो टिप्पणी: कोटिलिङ्ग ।
Kotilinga (कोटिलिङ्ग) was a central court of the older Nepali legal order. It was established in the Malla period to hear civil disputes and appeals. It continued to function after the unification of Nepal and on into the Rana period. It sat alongside other courts and offices, such as the Itachapali. Together they formed part of the Hindu-influenced judicial structure that came before the modern court system.
Short note: New Muluki Ain (Naya Muluki Ain). / नयाँ मुलुकी ऐन
The New Muluki Ain (नयाँ मुलुकी ऐन) was the comprehensive national code promulgated in 2020 BS (1963 AD) under King Mahendra. It replaced the first Muluki Ain of 1910 BS (1854 AD). Its significance lies in several points:
So the New Muluki Ain is remembered as the law that brought formal legal equality to Nepal. It also prepared the ground for the fully modern codes now in force.
Short note: Itachapali. / इटाचपली
Itachapali (इटाचपली) is a term from Nepal's traditional, pre-codification legal and administrative practice. The legal history of early Nepal refers to it as one of the customary arrangements by which order and dues were maintained. These arrangements came before the country had a single written code. (Precise details of this term could not be verified against a primary source and are flagged below for human review.)
Short note: Shrestedar. / श्रेस्तेदार
A Shrestedar (श्रेस्तेदार) was a record-keeping official of the traditional Nepali judicial and administrative system. The name comes from "shresta", meaning records or accounts. The Shrestedar was the officer of a court or office who kept its case files, registers and accounts. So he was in effect the registrar or record keeper. The orderly conduct of court business depended on him.
Analyse the various bases of the Nepalese legal system. / नेपाली कानून प्रणालीका विभिन्न आधारहरुबारे विश्लेषण गर्नुहोस् ।
The Nepali legal system does not rest on a single source. It rests on several bases working together in an order of authority. A source simply means a place where a court finds the rules it applies. Looking at these bases from the highest downward gives a clear picture of where Nepali law comes from.
The first and highest basis is the Constitution of Nepal 2015. It is the fundamental law of the land. Every other law is valid only so far as it agrees with the Constitution. A law that clashes with it is void to the extent of the clash. For example, suppose a statute allowed detention without the safeguards the Constitution requires. The Supreme Court could then strike it down.
The second basis is legislation (ऐन). In the federal structure, statutes are made at three levels. The Federal Parliament, the Provincial Assemblies and the local assemblies each make law in their own sphere. These Acts, with the rules and bylaws framed under them, form most of the written law. Courts apply this written law day to day. The Muluki Civil Code 2074 is a leading example.
The third basis is precedent (नजिर). Nepal follows the common-law idea of binding precedent. Precedent means that a settled decision guides later ones. The interpretations laid down by the Supreme Court bind all lower courts and public authorities. So judicial decisions themselves become a source of law.
The fourth basis is custom and usage (प्रथा). A custom can be applied if it is long established and reasonable. It must also not go against written law. This matters most in family and community matters. A settled local practice of worship or marriage is an example. Alongside these are the general principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Courts turn to these where the written law gives no answer. Ratified international treaties are also a source. Under the Nepal Treaty Act they are enforceable as if they were Nepali law.
The last basis is the historical and religious basis. The Hindu Dharmashastra shaped Nepali law for centuries. Even after codification, it still influences family law and personal law. The structure of partition and succession now carried into the Muluki Civil Code 2074 is one example.
Taken together, these bases show where Nepali law comes from. It is drawn from a written constitution, from legislation at three levels, from judicial precedent, from custom and from general principles. All of these are ranked in a hierarchy with the Constitution supreme. This blend of sources is what gives the Nepali legal system its mixed character. It is codified like a civil law system. It follows precedent like a common law system. And it is still rooted in its own custom and religious tradition.
Describe the court structure of Nepal. / नेपालको अदालती संरचनाबारे व्याख्या गर्नुहोस् ।
The court structure of Nepal is laid down in the Constitution of Nepal 2015. The Constitution organises the regular courts into three tiers. It also allows further judicial bodies to be created by law. The structure is easiest to understand from the top down, because authority rises step by step to a single top court.
At the top stands the Supreme Court (सर्वोच्च अदालत). It sits in Kathmandu. It is the final court of appeal. It is the final interpreter of the Constitution and the laws. It is also a court of record. It has extraordinary writ jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights (Art. 133). A writ is a special order the court uses to protect a right. The legal principles the Court lays down are binding on all courts and authorities (Art. 128). So its decisions set precedent for the whole country. It is headed by the Chief Justice. For example, a person whose fundamental right is violated may petition the Supreme Court directly for a writ. The principle the Court lays down then guides every court below.
Below the Supreme Court are the High Courts (उच्च अदालत). There are seven of them, one for each province. They hear appeals from the district courts within their province. They also have original jurisdiction over certain matters, including some writ petitions.
Below them again are the District Courts (जिल्ला अदालत). There are seventy-seven of them, one in each district. These are the courts of first instance. Most civil and criminal cases begin here. Here the evidence is heard and the facts are decided. A theft prosecution or a partition suit starts in the District Court.
The Constitution does not stop at these three tiers. It allows the creation of other courts, judicial bodies and tribunals by law. These include special courts and quasi-judicial tribunals for particular subjects. The Constitution also provides for a judicial committee (न्यायिक समिति) at each local level (Art. 217). This committee settles certain local disputes, often through mediation. This keeps justice close to where people live.
Appeals move upward through this pyramid. They go from the district courts, to the high courts, and in the cases the law allows, on to the Supreme Court. This arrangement gives Nepal a clear, unified judiciary. Authority rises step by step to a single top court. At the same time, the local judicial committees provide easy forums for small disputes. So the structure serves both the consistency of the law and the convenience of ordinary citizens.
Differentiate between mediation and arbitration. / मेलमिलाप र मध्यस्थताबिच फरक छुट्याउनुहोस् ।
Both mediation and arbitration are forms of alternative dispute resolution. But they differ in several ways.
An example brings out the difference. Suppose two neighbours dispute a shared boundary. A mediator may help them agree to split the strip of land. That agreement binds them only because both accepted it. Now suppose instead that two companies have an arbitration clause in their contract. An arbitrator hears the dispute and issues an award fixing who must pay. That award binds them even if one side disagrees. In short, mediation helps the parties agree. Arbitration decides for them.
Differentiate between judicial activism and judicial review. / न्यायिक सक्रियता र न्यायिक पुनरावलोकनका बीच फरक छुट्याउनुहोस् ।
Judicial review and judicial activism are related but different ideas.
An illustration helps. Striking down a statute because it clashes with a fundamental right is judicial review. Now take a different case. A citizen files a public interest petition on behalf of a disadvantaged group. The court hears it and issues directive orders to the state to protect their rights. That is judicial activism. In Nepal the Supreme Court exercises judicial review as a guardian of the Constitution. It has also shown activism through public interest litigation and directive orders on matters of rights and public concern.
Short note: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). / विवाद समाधानका वैकल्पिक उपाय
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR, वैकल्पिक विवाद समाधान) means settling a dispute without a full court trial. It uses methods such as negotiation, mediation and arbitration. In Nepal mediation is governed by the Mediation Act 2068 and arbitration by the Arbitration Act 2055. ADR is valued for being quicker, cheaper and less of a fight than a court case.
Short note: Court. / अदालत
A court (अदालत) is an organ of the state set up by the Constitution or by law. It gives justice by hearing disputes and deciding them according to law. In Nepal the courts under the Constitution of Nepal 2015 are the Supreme Court, the seven High Courts and the seventy-seven District Courts.
Short note: Judicial bodies. / न्यायिक निकाय
Judicial bodies (न्यायिक निकाय) are the bodies given power to decide disputes according to law. They include the regular courts: the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the District Courts. They also include other bodies that do judicial work, such as the local-level judicial committees and the quasi-judicial tribunals created by law.
Short note: Judicial procedure. / न्यायिक प्रक्रिया
Judicial procedure (न्यायिक प्रक्रिया) is the set of steps by which a case moves through the courts. It runs from filing the case and serving notice, through the hearing of evidence and arguments, to the judgment, and then to appeal and execution. In Nepal it is governed mainly by the Muluki Civil Procedure Code and the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code 2074.
What is a legal system? Describe the influence of other legal systems on the Nepalese legal system. / कानून प्रणाली भनेको के हो ? नेपाली कानून प्रणालीमा अन्य कानून प्रणालीको प्रभावबारे व्याख्या गर्नुहोस् ।
A legal system is the entire framework through which a state runs the law. It is the set of rules, institutions and procedures by which the state makes, applies, interprets and enforces law. Nepal's legal system is a mixed one. Over its history it absorbed ideas from several of the world's major legal families. It then blended them with its own custom. Four influences in particular have shaped it. Each one can still be seen in the law of Nepal today.
The first and deepest is the Hindu legal influence. For centuries Nepali law rested on the Dharmashastra, the smriti and religious custom. The first codified law was the Muluki Ain of 1854. It was built largely on Hindu principles. That religious and caste basis has been removed. But much of its content survives in present family and property law. The Muluki Civil Code 2074 still deals with partition of ancestral property (अंशबण्डा). It deals with the rights of sons in the joint family, and with inheritance, marriage and adoption. All these carry forward ideas received through the Hindu tradition. The Code now applies them in a reformed and equal form. For example, the coparcenary claim of a son descends from Hindu law. But the Code now extends comparable property rights to daughters.
The second is the common law influence. It was received mainly through British India and legal education. From it Nepal took the doctrine of precedent. Precedent means a decided case guides later cases. Under Article 128 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015, the Supreme Court's interpretation of law binds everyone. This works much as stare decisis does. A single Supreme Court ruling on a Code provision then governs every later case. Nepal also took the adversarial style of trial. It also took the prerogative writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto. A writ is a special court order that protects a right. The Supreme Court and the High Courts issue these writs to protect fundamental rights. Public interest litigation grew around them.
The third is the civil law influence. It is seen in Nepal's central method of law-making, which is comprehensive, systematic codification. Codification means gathering the law into one organised code. The Muluki Ain began this habit. It reaches its modern form in the Muluki Civil Code 2074 and the Muluki Penal Code 2074. These are single organised codes that replaced scattered statutes. This is a hallmark of the civil law family. A judge deciding a property or contract dispute looks first to the relevant code provision. This is exactly what a civil law judge does.
The fourth is the socialist influence. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 declares a "socialism-oriented" state (Article 4). It guarantees socio-economic rights in Part 3. These are rights such as employment, education, health, housing and social security. In Part 4 it directs the state toward an equitable, exploitation-free society. Land reform and the protection of weaker groups carry the same spirit. These provisions treat welfare as a legal entitlement, which is a socialist idea.
Taken together, these influences explain the character of Nepali law. It is religious and customary at its root. It is codified in its form. It is common-law in much of its procedure. And it is socialist-oriented in its goals. It is this blend that makes the Nepalese legal system a distinctive mixed system. The blend rests today on the Constitution of Nepal 2015 as supreme law. This is why a student of Nepali law must understand all four of these great legal traditions.
Explain the Nepalese legal education. / नेपालको कानूनी शिक्षाबारे वर्णन गर्नुहोस् ।
Legal education in Nepal means the organised teaching and study of law. It trains the people who run the justice system. It also spreads legal awareness among citizens. Its main features can be set out as follows.
In short, Nepali legal education began modestly. It has grown into a wider, more practical and more specialised system. It supplies the people on whom the rule of law depends. It supplies the people who enforce the Constitution of Nepal 2015.