A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women - Asia Pacific ...

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Nepal
Nationality and Citizenship
Meera Gurung (Petitioner) v Her Majesty’s Government, Department
<strong>of</strong> Central Immigration, Ministry <strong>of</strong> Home Affairs (Respondents)
Decision No. 4858 <strong>of</strong> 1994
Supreme Court (Full Bench)
Hargorvind Singh Pradha, Laxman Prasad Angel JJ
<strong>Law</strong>s Considered
Constitution <strong>of</strong> Nepal 1990, Article 11;
Regulation Relating to Foreigners, Rules 14(3) and 14(4).
This case examines discriminatory standards in Nepalese immigration law. The Court
considered whether regulations which treat Nepalese men marrying non-nationals
differently to Nepalese women marrying non-nationals were in breach <strong>of</strong> the
Constitution <strong>of</strong> Nepal 1990 [“the Constitution”].
The petitioner, Meera Gurung, a Nepalese woman, married a foreigner and intended
to settle in Nepal with their child. Meera Gurung’s husband applied for a work visa
and a residential visa. The Department <strong>of</strong> Immigration denied both applications on
the basis <strong>of</strong> the Regulation Relating to Foreigners [“the Regulation”]. The Regulation
states that when a Nepalese man marries a foreign woman, she is automatically
entitled to a non-tourist visa for the duration <strong>of</strong> the marriage with an additional three
months if the marriage should end. However, when a Nepalese woman marries a
foreign man, he is only entitled to a non-tourist visa for a maximum <strong>of</strong> four months
in every year and this visa must be renewed each year. The Ministry <strong>of</strong> Home Affairs
refused to hear any complaint on this matter. The petitioner began court proceedings
to declare the Regulation invalid.
The petitioner argued that the Regulation was contrary to the equality provisions contained
in Article 11 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution as it was discriminatory on the ground <strong>of</strong> sex.
The respondents argued that the Department <strong>of</strong> Immigration was the proper place for
the petitioner to lodge her complaint and consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to
hear the matter. Further, the respondents argued that as Article 11 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution
applied only to Nepalese citizens, and not to foreign husbands, the challenge had no
substance.
62