Nepal Recording Laws: All-Party Consent, Penalties and the 2025 IT Act (2026)

Nepal requires all-party consent to record any private conversation under Section 293 of the National Penal Code 2074 (2017). Violations carry up to two years imprisonment or a fine of NPR 20,000. The 2025 Information Technology and Cybersecurity Act adds updated digital penalties.

Information last verified on May 15, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording consent law in the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal under the National Penal Code 2074, the Individual Privacy Act 2075 (2018), the Constitution of Nepal 2015, and the Information Technology and Cybersecurity Act 2082 (2025). It does not address recording law in India, China, or other neighboring countries except for brief comparative notes. For recording law by country, see world recording laws.

---

Is Nepal a One-Party or All-Party Consent Jurisdiction?

Nepal is an all-party consent jurisdiction. Under Section 293 of the National Penal Code 2074, no person may use any mechanical device to eavesdrop on or record a conversation between two or more people without the consent of all those involved or without authorization from the relevant authority. Every participant in a private conversation must agree before any recording begins. One person consenting on behalf of the group is not sufficient. The same standard applies to phone calls, in-person meetings, video chats, and any other private communication medium. Section 297 of the same Code specifically reinforces the prohibition for telephone tapping. Together, these provisions place Nepal among the stricter recording-consent jurisdictions in South Asia, alongside countries that require full multi-party agreement rather than merely one participant's consent.

The all-party consent rule has one statutory exception: public speeches and statements made publicly are exempt from the consent requirement. A politician's rally speech, a press conference, a public lecture, or a street protest can all be recorded freely. However, this exemption applies to the nature of the communication, not to its physical location. A private conversation between two people at a cafe or a park bench is still a protected private communication, even though it occurs in a public place.

---

Constitutional Foundation: Article 28 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015

Nepal's recording restrictions rest on an explicit constitutional guarantee. Article 28 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 states:

"The privacy of any person, his or her residence, property, document, data, correspondence and matters relating to his or her character shall, except in accordance with law, be inviolable."

This provision protects not only communications but also data and documents. The Nepal Supreme Court confirmed in Baburam Aryal v. Government of Nepal (N.K.P. 2074, p. 25) that the right to privacy under Article 28 is a fundamental right that neither the State nor third parties may violate. The Court held that matters relating to a person's body, residence, property, documentation, data, communications, and character are inviolable except as permitted by law.

In a September 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this framework, finding that Nepal Telecom's procurement of a billing system that could expose sensitive customer data threatened privacy, dignity, and national security. The Court's consistent position is that the constitutional right to privacy places an affirmative obligation on both the government and private actors to protect personal communications from unauthorized access.

The recording statutes enacted by Parliament derive their legitimacy from Article 28. Any law purporting to permit recording without consent must satisfy Article 28's "in accordance with law" standard; court-authorized surveillance and the public-speech exception are the two recognized pathways. Consent of all parties is the default rule.

---

What the National Penal Code 2074 Says About Recording

The National Penal Code 2074 (Muluki Apradha Sanhita, 2074), which entered into force on August 17, 2018, contains the primary criminal prohibitions on recording. Sections 293 through 304 of Part 3, Chapter 1 address a range of privacy offenses including unauthorized recording, disclosure of confidential professional information, photography without consent, telephone tapping, and unlawful electronic data access.

Section 293: Prohibition on Eavesdropping and Recording

Section 293 is Nepal's core recording consent provision. The statutory text provides:

"No individual shall use any mechanical device to eavesdrop on or record a conversation between two or more people without the consent of those involved or authorization from the relevant authority."

The law's reference to "any mechanical device" is deliberately broad. It encompasses smartphones, digital voice recorders, hidden microphones, surveillance systems, recording software on computers, and any future technology capable of capturing a conversation. Whether the conversation occurs face to face, over a phone line, through a VoIP application such as Viber or WhatsApp, or via a video-conferencing platform such as Zoom, the same consent requirement applies.

Penalty for violation: imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding NPR 20,000 (approximately USD 150 at current exchange rates), or both.

Section 294: Confidential Professional Information

Section 294 prohibits any person from disclosing another person's confidential information obtained during the course of professional duties, unless required by law or expressly authorized by the person to whom the information pertains. This provision applies to lawyers, doctors, therapists, accountants, and other licensed professionals.

For professionals, a recording violation can compound into a Section 294 offense. A lawyer who secretly records a client meeting violates Section 293; if the lawyer later discloses the recording, a separate Section 294 prosecution becomes possible.

Penalty: imprisonment up to one year, or a fine of up to NPR 10,000, or both.

Section 295: Photography Without Consent

Section 295 extends the consent requirement to visual recordings. No person may take a photograph of another person without that person's consent. The standard incidental-capture exception applies: if a person unintentionally appears in a photograph of a public place, no offense is committed. Deliberately photographing a specific individual without permission, even in a public setting, can attract liability.

Penalty for unauthorized photography: imprisonment up to one year, or NPR 10,000 fine, or both. Disfiguring or altering someone's photograph carries a heavier penalty of up to two years imprisonment or NPR 20,000.

Section 296: Selling or Distributing Photographs Without Consent

Section 296 addresses the downstream offense of commercializing unauthorized images. Selling or distributing a person's photograph without their consent is a separate and more serious offense.

Penalty: imprisonment up to three years, or a fine of up to NPR 30,000, or both.

Section 297: Telephone Tapping

Section 297 specifically prohibits opening another person's correspondence or tapping telephone conversations. This provision reinforces that phone call recording without all-party consent is a distinct criminal offense under the Penal Code, in addition to the general prohibition in Section 293.

Penalty: imprisonment up to two years, or a fine of up to NPR 20,000, or both.

Section 298: Unlawful Electronic Data Access

Section 298 criminalizes the unlawful access, interception, disclosure, or transfer of personal data through electronic or digital means. This provision extends the recording framework to digital data environments and is the closest existing statutory basis for prosecuting non-consensual captures of digital communications.

---

Phone Calls and In-Person Recording: The Same Rule Applies

Nepal's law makes no meaningful distinction between recording a telephone call and recording a face-to-face conversation. Section 293's prohibition on using "any mechanical device" to capture "a conversation between two or more persons" covers both scenarios without differentiation. For phone calls, Section 297 adds a reinforcing specific prohibition on telephone tapping. Secretly recording a phone call in Nepal can therefore engage two separate Penal Code provisions.

The all-party consent rule works identically regardless of communication medium:

• A phone call: every person on the call must consent before recording begins.
• An in-person meeting: every person present must agree.
• A group video chat: every participant must consent.
• A messaging-app voice call on WhatsApp, Viber, or similar platforms: the same consent standard applies because the communication remains private.

The only exception remains the public-speech exemption. A politician speaking at a rally, a professor delivering a public lecture, or a public official making a statement at a press conference may be recorded without separate consent, because those statements are made publicly and carry no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Watch out: Employees sometimes believe that recording a workplace conversation for personal protection (to document harassment or threats) is legally different from other covert recording. It is not. Nepal's Penal Code Section 293 contains no self-protection exception. Any recording made without all-party consent violates the statute regardless of the recorder's intent.

---

The Individual Privacy Act, 2075 (2018)

The Individual Privacy Act, 2075 (officially titled "The Privacy Act, 2075" on the Nepal Law Commission website at lawcommission.gov.np and in government publications, and commonly called the Individual Privacy Act in practitioner commentary) took effect on September 18, 2018 (2 Asoj, 2075 BS). It builds on the Penal Code's recording restrictions with a comprehensive framework for personal data protection.

Scope of Protection

The Act protects the privacy of a person's body, residence, property, documents, data, communications, and character. Section 13 specifically reinforces the privacy of communications, including letters, emails, and electronic conversations. Section 12 establishes the right of individuals to keep personal and family information confidential; no entity may collect such data without prior consent.

Data Subject Rights

Under the Individual Privacy Act, 2075, Nepalese persons have the following rights regarding their personal information:

• The right to be informed about collection of their personal data
• The right to access personal data held about them
• The right to rectification of inaccurate data
• The right not to have sensitive personal information processed without consent
• The right to file a complaint and seek compensation from the District Court

Section 27(2) defines sensitive personal information to include caste, ethnicity, origin, political affiliation, religious belief, physical or mental health, sexual orientation, sexual history, and details relating to property. Entities handling sensitive categories face heightened obligations.

The Act does not include a right to erasure (sometimes called the "right to be forgotten"). This is a notable gap when compared to the European Union's GDPR or India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Data Collection Requirements

Any entity collecting personal information must satisfy three preconditions: approval of the competent authority, consent of the data subject, and prior notification to the data subject of the purpose and nature of the collection. Sections 23 through 28 set out compliance obligations. Data collection, storage, processing, and publication may only be conducted by an authorized person or designated official.

Penalties Under the Individual Privacy Act

Violations of the Individual Privacy Act carry penalties of up to three years imprisonment, fines of up to NPR 30,000, or both. These penalties are steeper than those under Penal Code Section 293 alone, and prosecutors may elect to charge under the Privacy Act when the privacy violation involves data collection or data processing rather than a simple in-person recording.

Enforcement: District Court Only

Nepal has no dedicated data protection authority equivalent to the Information Commissioner's Office in the United Kingdom or the OPC in Canada. Privacy complaints must be filed directly with the relevant District Court. The court may award reasonable compensation to the victim in addition to ordering criminal penalties.

Statute of Limitations

Victims must file their complaint at the District Court within three months from the date the offense was committed or discovered. This is a short window; delay typically forecloses legal recourse entirely.

Gap: Foreign Entities

The Individual Privacy Act, 2075 does not clearly specify whether its obligations apply to foreign entities or data processors operating outside Nepal whose activities affect Nepali data subjects. This gap has practical significance for multinational companies that process recordings or personal data involving Nepali citizens on servers located abroad.

---

The IT and Cybersecurity Act, 2082 (2025): Replacing the Electronic Transactions Act

Nepal's legal framework for digital communications was significantly updated when the Information Technology and Cybersecurity Act, 2082 (2025) (the "IT Act") was passed by the House of Representatives on August 14, 2025 and subsequently passed and authenticated by both chambers of the Federal Parliament. The IT Act replaced the Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2006), which had governed digital communications and electronic records since 2006.

What Changed

The Electronic Transactions Act 2063, while it criminalized unauthorized access to and interception of electronic data, was widely regarded as outdated. The IT Act modernizes the framework by addressing cybercrimes including misuse of artificial intelligence, unauthorized access to computer systems, password and PIN theft, false digital certificates, and obstruction of cybersecurity systems.

For recording law purposes, the IT Act carries forward the prohibition on unauthorized interception of electronic communications and adds significantly higher penalties than those in the Penal Code or the ETA.

Maximum penalty under the IT Act: five years imprisonment and a fine of NPR 10 lakh (one million rupees) for covered digital offenses. This is substantially higher than the Penal Code's NPR 20,000 ceiling for recording violations.

What the IT Act Does Not Address

Digital rights organizations including Digital Rights Nepal raised concerns about the IT Act's limitations:

• No explicit provision for deepfakes or synthetic AI-generated media
• Vague definition of "obscene material" in Clause 88(1), creating risk of arbitrary enforcement against journalists and artists
• Incomplete data protection provisions lacking fundamental rights such as data access, correction capabilities, and breach complaint mechanisms
• Failure to address technology-facilitated gender-based violence, cyberstalking, and cyberbullying

Admissibility of Recordings

The IT Act, like its predecessor, provides a legal framework for the admissibility of electronic evidence in court proceedings. A recording made with all-party consent and stored in a manner consistent with the IT Act's requirements can be admitted as evidence. A recording made without consent is not only inadmissible but also exposes the recorder to criminal liability.

---

Recording Police and Public Officials

Recording police officers or other public officials performing their duties in public spaces occupies a legally uncertain zone in Nepal. The National Penal Code's all-party consent rule technically applies, but two constitutional mechanisms provide potential support for recordings in the public interest.

First, Article 27 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 guarantees the Right to Information. Citizens have a constitutional right to seek, receive, and impart information on matters of public concern. Recording a police encounter in a public place is arguably an exercise of this right, since the information captured relates to the conduct of public officials in the discharge of their duties.

Second, the National Civil Code 2074 contains a public interest exception that could potentially justify recordings that serve a legitimate public purpose. However, as of May 2026, this provision has not been interpreted by the Nepal Supreme Court in the context of recording law.

A 2025 peer-reviewed study published in Prashasan: The Nepalese Journal of Public Administration concluded that Nepal's framework on recording public officials is "hindered by definitional ambiguities and conflicts between constitutional and statutory provisions." The study found that in practice, police have forced citizens to stop recording, confiscated phones, or deleted footage without warrants, even though no clear statutory prohibition on recording police in public performance of their duties has been established.

The practical recommendation for journalists and citizens: exercise caution. The constitutional arguments in favor of recording public officials on duty are strong but untested in Nepal's courts. Until the Supreme Court issues definitive guidance, the risk of police interference or prosecution cannot be ruled out.

---

Recording in Public Places

Section 293 of the National Penal Code explicitly exempts any speech or statement "made publicly" from the recording consent requirement. This exception covers:

• Political speeches at rallies or public events
• Press conferences and public government proceedings
• Public lectures and academic presentations
• Street performances and public demonstrations
• Official statements by government ministers or spokespersons at public briefings

The exemption applies to the nature of the speech, not to the physical location where recording takes place. A private conversation that happens to occur in a public location, such as a coffee shop, a park, or a restaurant, does not qualify for the public-speech exemption. The two participants retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversation even when strangers might overhear it.

For photography, Section 295 creates a parallel exception: unintentionally capturing a person in a photograph of a public place is not an offense. But deliberately photographing a specific individual in public without their consent remains an actionable offense under Section 295.

This creates practical uncertainty for documentary filmmakers, street photographers, and citizen journalists. Nepal's courts have not issued definitive guidance on where the line falls between protected public-speech recording and a Section 293 violation when the subject is a private individual who happens to speak in a public space. Practitioners in Nepal who conduct investigative journalism should obtain legal advice about their specific circumstances rather than assuming a public-location defense will succeed.

---

Workplace Recording in Nepal

Nepal's labor laws do not contain specific provisions for workplace recording or employee monitoring. The general rules of the National Penal Code 2074 and the Individual Privacy Act, 2075 apply in the employment context, which means the all-party consent requirement extends fully to the workplace.

Employee Recording of Conversations

An employee who wishes to record a conversation with a supervisor, coworker, or client must obtain consent from all parties. Nepal's law recognizes no workplace exception, no whistleblower-protection exception, and no self-help recording defense. An employee who secretly records a meeting to document harassment or unsafe conditions technically violates Section 293, regardless of intent.

This creates a practical difficulty. Employees in Nepal who face workplace misconduct and wish to preserve contemporaneous evidence must either obtain the other party's consent before recording (which may tip off the offender) or rely on alternative documentation methods such as contemporaneous written notes or witness statements.

Employer Surveillance and CCTV

Nepal's CCTV Installation and Operation Procedures, 2072, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, establish requirements for surveillance camera systems in business and public-facing settings. Key requirements include:

• CCTV systems must be registered with the relevant authority
• Cameras may not monitor neighboring properties or private areas without authorization
• External-facing cameras must comply with privacy boundaries
• Data security protocols must be maintained for stored footage
• Unregistered external-facing cameras can result in fines, forced removal, and legal action

Employers should ensure that CCTV systems do not capture audio, which would trigger the Penal Code's consent requirements under Section 293. Employees and visitors should be informed about the presence, location, and purpose of any surveillance cameras through clearly posted notices.

Employee Monitoring Software

Nepal's legal framework has not specifically addressed digital employee monitoring tools such as keystroke logging, screen-capture software, or location tracking. The Individual Privacy Act, 2075 Section 13's protection of communications privacy, read together with the Penal Code's prohibition on unauthorized interception, suggests that covert monitoring of employees' private communications through software would raise serious legal risk. Employers should treat any monitoring program that captures communications content as requiring prior consent.

Recommendations for Employers

Businesses operating in Nepal should consider the following practices:

• Post clear written notices informing employees and visitors about recording or surveillance
• Include workplace monitoring provisions in employment agreements and obtain written consent
• Limit audio recording in the workplace to avoid Penal Code violations
• Establish written data retention and deletion schedules for all CCTV and recording data
• Seek local legal advice before deploying employee monitoring technology

---

Government and Law Enforcement Exceptions

Section 293 includes an exception for recordings made "with authorization from the relevant authority." This language provides the legal basis for court-authorized surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Judicial Authorization for Wiretapping

Outside of any special legislative framework, law enforcement in Nepal can obtain authorization for wiretapping through the courts. A judicial authorization requires a showing of probable cause and a specific investigative need. Recordings obtained without proper judicial authorization may be challenged as inadmissible evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The Special Service Bill: Lapsed Without Enactment

In May 2020, Nepal's National Assembly (Upper House) endorsed the Special Service Bill, which would have permitted intelligence officials to intercept telephone conversations on the authority of a written document from the agency head, without requiring a court order. Former Nepal Bar Association chairperson Sher Bahadur KC stated publicly that the bill violated Article 28 of the Constitution.

The bill never completed the full legislative process. It became inactive in September 2022 when the term of the House of Representatives ended, and it was not enacted into law. As of May 2026, no equivalent wiretap-without-court-order legislation has been enacted. Authorized wiretapping in Nepal continues to require judicial approval.

---

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Nepal

Nepal's penalties for recording-related offenses are distributed across multiple statutes. The following table summarizes the current penalty structure:

All Penal Code and Privacy Act penalties allow for imprisonment, a fine, or both at the court's discretion. NPR 20,000 is approximately USD 150 at mid-2026 exchange rates; NPR 30,000 is approximately USD 225; NPR 10 lakh is approximately USD 7,500. The three-month statute of limitations for filing complaints under the Individual Privacy Act means that enforcement depends heavily on victims acting promptly.

---

Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Recording

In addition to criminal prosecution, victims of unauthorized recording in Nepal may seek civil compensation through the District Court. The Individual Privacy Act, 2075 provides that where a complaint is filed and the offense is established, the District Court shall cause the offender to pay reasonable compensation to the victim for the damage, loss, and distress suffered.

The key procedural requirements are:

• File at the relevant District Court (not a specialized tribunal; Nepal has no dedicated privacy authority)
• File within three months of the date the offense was committed or discovered
• The victim bears the burden of establishing that an unauthorized recording occurred and caused harm

The three-month limitation period is short by international standards. Victims who discover a recording after the limitation period has expired lose their right to civil compensation under the Privacy Act. Criminal charges under the Penal Code have their own separate limitation periods.

No reported District Court decisions with established quantum of compensation for recording violations have been widely published in Nepal as of May 2026. Compensation amounts remain in the discretion of the individual court.

---

Non-Consensual Images and Voyeurism

Nepal's Penal Code addresses non-consensual imaging through Sections 295 and 296, which prohibit unauthorized photography and distribution of photographs without consent. These provisions cover:

• Secretly photographing a person in a private situation (changing room, bathroom, private residence)
• Photographing a person in public without consent where the purpose is harassment or embarrassment
• Altering, disfiguring, or creating manipulated images of a person without consent
• Selling, distributing, or publishing photographs without the subject's consent

The escalating penalty structure reflects the gravity of distribution offenses: taking an unauthorized photograph carries up to one year imprisonment; altering it raises the maximum to two years; selling or distributing it reaches three years imprisonment or NPR 30,000.

Section 298, which criminalizes unlawful access, interception, disclosure, or transfer of personal data through electronic or digital means, can be read to cover non-consensual intimate images shared digitally. However, Nepal has no dedicated voyeurism statute equivalent to those in the United Kingdom (Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended) or Australia (state-level image-based abuse laws).

Victims of non-consensual image sharing should be aware of the three-month limitation period for Privacy Act complaints and the option to file under Penal Code Sections 295-296, which have different limitation periods, in addition to seeking criminal action under the IT and Cybersecurity Act, 2082 where digital means were used.

---

Deepfakes and AI-Generated Content

Nepal has no enacted statute that specifically addresses deepfakes, synthetic media, or AI-generated impersonation as of May 2026. This is a significant gap, given that deepfake incidents involving public figures have already occurred within Nepal.

In 2024, AI-manipulated videos of Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah and Deputy Mayor Sunita Dangol in fabricated scenarios circulated widely on social media. An AI-generated "Dohori" singing battle featuring sitting and former Prime Ministers went viral on TikTok and Facebook Reels. These incidents exposed the absence of a legal framework specifically targeted at synthetic media.

Current Prosecution Attempts

Prosecutors attempting to address deepfake content must currently rely on general provisions not designed for synthetic media:

• Penal Code Section 295: the prohibition on altering or disfiguring a photograph without consent might be stretched to cover AI face-swap or deepfake video content, but the statutory language was written for traditional photography.
• Penal Code Section 298: the prohibition on unlawful disclosure or transfer of personal data through electronic means could apply to deepfakes that use biometric data without consent, but the fit is imperfect.
• IT and Cybersecurity Act, 2082 (2025): the provision on AI misuse could potentially cover malicious deepfake deployment, but the Act contains no explicit deepfake definition or targeted penalty.

National AI Policy 2082 (2025)

Nepal's government approved the National AI Policy 2082 in August 2025, identifying deepfakes, data privacy, and algorithmic bias as core ethical challenges requiring regulatory attention. The policy signals an intent to address synthetic media through future legislation but does not itself create enforceable rules.

Until specific deepfake legislation is enacted, persons who create or distribute non-consensual deepfake content in Nepal face legal uncertainty. The constitutional right to privacy under Article 28, combined with the Penal Code's general privacy provisions, provides the strongest available basis for a complaint, but the lack of a targeted statute creates enforcement challenges.

---

Press Freedom and Journalism

Nepal's recording laws have attracted criticism from international press freedom organizations. The Committee to Protect Journalists noted at the Penal Code's enactment in 2018 that Sections 293, 294, and 295 could expose journalists to prosecution for recording conversations or taking photographs as part of investigative reporting. Reporters Without Borders has called on Nepal to amend its criminal code to include explicit protections for journalistic recording in the public interest.

The constitutional Right to Information under Article 27 and a public interest exception within the National Civil Code 2074 provide potential defenses for journalists. However, as of May 2026, these provisions remain judicially undefined in the recording context. No Nepal Supreme Court ruling has clearly established when public interest recording by journalists overrides the all-party consent requirements of the Penal Code.

The IT and Cybersecurity Act, 2082 (2025) has drawn additional press freedom concerns. Digital Rights Nepal found that Clause 88(1)'s vague prohibition on distributing "obscene material" creates risk of arbitrary enforcement against journalists and artists. The overlap between the Penal Code, the Privacy Act, and the IT Act means that investigative journalists in Nepal may face prosecution under multiple statutes simultaneously.

Until Nepal enacts explicit public interest and journalism exemptions, journalists conducting undercover investigations or recording sources without consent operate in legally uncertain territory and should seek legal counsel before publishing.

---

Business Compliance and Practical Considerations

Call Recording Consent Disclosures

Businesses that record customer calls in Nepal must obtain all-party consent before recording begins. In practice, this means playing an automated disclosure at the start of each call stating that the call may be recorded and giving the caller an opportunity to object before the conversation begins. A caller who continues after the disclosure has given implied consent; a caller who objects must not be recorded.

Unlike one-party consent jurisdictions, a business's own decision to record its side of a call is legally insufficient under Section 293. The customer on the other end must also consent.

Data Storage and Security

The Individual Privacy Act, 2075 requires entities that collect and store personal data (including call recordings, meeting recordings, video surveillance, and CCTV footage) to implement data security protocols. Cloud storage providers, remote-access systems, and data processors handling recordings must comply with the Act's security and access-control requirements.

Cross-Border Considerations

Nepal does not have comprehensive international data transfer regulations comparable to GDPR Chapter V. The Individual Privacy Act, 2075 does not clearly specify whether its requirements apply to foreign entities or data processors whose activities affect Nepali data subjects but whose operations are located outside Nepal. This is a recognized gap.

The practical position for multinational companies is that Nepal-originating recordings involving Nepali citizens should be treated as subject to Nepal's consent requirements, regardless of where the data is stored or processed. Companies based in India that regularly conduct business with Nepali counterparts should note that India's one-party consent framework (under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act, 2000) does not apply on the Nepali side of a cross-border conversation; each party's home jurisdiction applies to that party's recording obligations.

---

How Nepal Compares to Neighboring Countries

Nepal's all-party consent standard places it among the stricter recording-consent jurisdictions in South Asia.

Within South Asia, Nepal's constitutional privacy guarantee under Article 28 and its dedicated Individual Privacy Act place it closer to jurisdictions with strong individual privacy traditions. By contrast, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka generally permit one-party consent recording, meaning a party to the conversation may record without disclosing this to the other participants.

The practical gap between Nepal's law and neighboring jurisdictions is most relevant for cross-border business communications: a recording that is lawful in India (one-party consent) may be unlawful in Nepal if the Nepali participant did not consent. Companies operating across the India-Nepal corridor should structure call-recording policies to meet Nepal's stricter all-party consent standard for all calls that include Nepali participants.

---

---

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording consent laws in the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. The information in this article was verified as of May 15, 2026, and reflects the National Penal Code 2074 (2017), the Individual Privacy Act, 2075 (2018), the Constitution of Nepal 2015, and the Information Technology and Cybersecurity Act, 2082 (2025) as of that date. Laws and their interpretation change; this article may not reflect subsequent legislative amendments, regulatory guidance, or court decisions issued after May 15, 2026.

Readers who need advice about a specific recording situation, employment matter, data privacy concern, or criminal matter in Nepal should consult a lawyer licensed to practice law in Nepal. Recording law involves serious criminal liability, and acting without qualified legal advice may expose you to prosecution.

---

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER: author roster pending. This article was researched and drafted by the RecordingLaw.com editorial team and reflects primary sources from the Nepal Law Commission, the Nepal Federal Parliament, and peer-reviewed legal scholarship.]

---

Authorities Cited

1. Constitution of Nepal 2015, Article 28. https://lpr.adb.org/sites/default/files/resource/629/nepal-constitution.pdf.pdf
2. National Penal (Code) Act, 2074 (2017), Sections 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298. https://lpr.adb.org/resource/national-penal-code-act-2017-nepal
3. Individual Privacy Act, 2075 (2018) (The Privacy Act, 2075). Nepal Law Commission. https://lawcommission.gov.np/content/12261/12261-the-privacy-act-2075/
4. Individual Privacy Act, 2075 (2018), Government of Nepal HMIS full text. https://hmis.gov.np/media/22/03_The-Privacy-Act-2075-2018.pdf
5. Information Technology and Cybersecurity Act, 2082 (2025). Federal Parliament of Nepal. https://hr.parliament.gov.np/en/bills/njBRB4qb
6. Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2006). Nepal Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. https://tepc.gov.np/uploads/files/12the-electronic-transaction-act55.pdf
7. CCTV Installation and Operation Procedures, 2072. Ministry of Home Affairs, Nepal. https://moha.gov.np/en/post/cctv-camera-installation-and-operation-procedural-2072
8. Baburam Aryal v. Government of Nepal, N.K.P. 2074, 25 (Nepal Supreme Court). https://supremecourt.gov.np
9. Nepal Supreme Court ruling on Nepal Telecom billing system, September 10, 2024. https://supremecourt.gov.np
10. Sumanashrestha.com.np, IT and Cyber Security Bill 2082 summary. https://sumanashrestha.com.np/en/parliament/bills/2025-07/suchana-pravidhi-cyber-security-2082/
11. Kathmandu Post, "IT and Cybersecurity bill raises free speech concerns," August 18, 2025. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2025/08/18/it-and-cybersecurity-bill-raises-free-speech-concerns
12. Kathmandu Post, "Upper House endorses Bill on Special Service allowing phone tapping without court order," May 20, 2020. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/05/20/upper-house-endorses-bill-on-special-service-allowing-phone-tapping-without-court-order
13. Nepal Law and Policy Centre, Special Service Bill 2076 analysis. https://nlpc.org.np/2020/09/21/190/
14. Prashasan: The Nepalese Journal of Public Administration, "The Legality of Recording Police Officers and Conversations in Police Stations: A Jurisdictional Analysis and Human Rights Perspective" (2025). https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/prashasan/article/view/91212
15. Digital Watch Observatory, "Nepal's National AI Policy 2082 (2025)." https://dig.watch/resource/nepals-national-ai-policy-2082-2025
16. Committee to Protect Journalists, "New Nepali criminal code threatens press freedom," August 2018. https://cpj.org/2018/08/new-nepali-criminal-code-threatens-press-freedom/
17. Reporters Without Borders, "Guarantee press freedom: Nepal must amend its new criminal code." https://rsf.org/en/guarantee-press-freedom-nepal-must-amend-its-new-criminal-code
18. DLA Piper, Data Protection Laws of the World: Nepal. https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=NP

---

Related Articles

• World recording laws by country
• India recording laws
• Is it illegal to record someone without consent?
• Can an employer record conversations without consent?

---

Last updated: May 15, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of May 15, 2026.