Nepal Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Overview of Nepal Recording Laws

Nepal takes a firm stance on recorded conversations. Under the National Penal Code 2074 (2017), no person may use a mechanical device to listen to or record a private conversation without the consent of all parties involved. This all-party consent standard puts Nepal among the more restrictive countries when it comes to recording law.

The legal framework draws from three primary statutes: the National Penal Code 2074, the Individual Privacy Act 2075 (2018), and the Electronic Transactions Act 2063 (2006). Together, these laws protect the privacy of communications, personal data, and electronic records.

Nepal's Constitution of 2015 provides the foundation for these protections. Article 28 declares that "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." The recording statutes put teeth behind that constitutional guarantee.

What the National Penal Code Says About Recording

Section 293: Prohibition on Eavesdropping and Recording

Section 293 of the National Penal Code 2074 is Nepal's primary recording law. It states that no person 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 a relevant authority.

The law applies broadly. "Mechanical device" covers everything from smartphones and digital recorders to hidden microphones and surveillance equipment. Whether the conversation happens in person, over a phone line, or through any other medium, the same consent requirement applies.

There is one clear exception: public speeches and statements. If someone delivers a speech at a public gathering, rally, or press conference, recording that speech does not require permission. The rationale is straightforward. A person addressing the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy in what they say to that audience.

Section 294: Confidential Professional Information

Section 294 addresses a related but distinct issue. It prohibits any person from disclosing another person's confidential information obtained during the course of professional duties, unless required by law or authorized by the person concerned.

For professionals such as lawyers, doctors, counselors, and accountants, this provision adds another layer of risk. Recording a client conversation without consent could violate both Section 293 (the recording itself) and Section 294 (if the recording captures confidential professional information that is later disclosed).

The penalty for violating Section 294 is imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to NPR 10,000, or both.

Section 295: Photography Without Consent

Nepal's recording restrictions extend to visual media. Section 295 prohibits taking a photograph of another person without their consent. The penalty is imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to NPR 10,000, or both.

An exception exists for incidental photography. If a person happens to appear in a photograph of a public place and their inclusion was unintentional, no offense has been committed. But deliberately photographing someone without permission, even in a public setting, could trigger liability.

Disfiguring or altering someone's photograph carries a heavier penalty: up to two years imprisonment or a fine of up to NPR 20,000. Selling or distributing a person's photograph without consent is punishable by up to three years imprisonment or a fine of up to NPR 30,000.

Section 297: Telephone Tapping

Section 297 specifically addresses opening another person's letters or tapping telephone conversations. This provision reinforces that phone call recording without consent falls squarely within the criminal code.

The penalty structure mirrors Section 293: up to two years imprisonment or a fine of up to NPR 20,000, or both.

Phone Recording vs. In-Person Recording

Nepal's law does not draw a meaningful distinction between recording phone calls and recording face-to-face conversations. Section 293 covers both scenarios with the same language, prohibiting the use of "any mechanical device" to eavesdrop on or record "a conversation between two or more persons."

For phone calls, Section 297 provides an additional layer of prohibition specifically targeting telephone tapping. This means that secretly recording a phone call in Nepal could potentially violate two separate provisions of the Penal Code.

In practice, the all-party consent rule works the same way regardless of medium. If you are on a phone call and want to record it, you need explicit permission from every other person on the line. If you are sitting in a meeting and want to record the discussion, every person in the room needs to agree.

The only scenario where consent is not required remains public speech. A politician speaking at a campaign rally, a professor delivering a public lecture, or a protester addressing a crowd can all be recorded freely.

The Individual Privacy Act 2075 (2018)

The Individual Privacy Act 2075, which took effect on September 18, 2018, builds on the Penal Code's recording restrictions with a broader framework for personal data protection.

Scope of Protection

The Privacy 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. Unauthorized access, interception, or publication of private correspondence is strictly prohibited.

Data Collection Requirements

Under the Privacy Act, collecting personal information requires three things: approval of the "Competent Authority," consent of the data subject, and prior notification to the data subject about the purpose and nature of the collection. This framework applies to any systematic recording or storage of personal information.

Sections 23 through 28 outline compliance obligations for entities that handle personal data. Data collection, storage, processing, and publication can only be conducted by an authorized person or designated official.

Right to Confidentiality

Section 12 establishes the right of individuals to keep personal and family data confidential. No entity may collect such data without prior consent. This provision has implications for recording in private settings, particularly when conversations touch on personal or family matters.

Penalties Under the Privacy Act

Violations of the Privacy Act carry penalties of up to 3 years imprisonment, fines of up to NPR 30,000, or both. These penalties are steeper than those under Section 293 of the Penal Code, giving prosecutors options when pursuing recording-related offenses.

Statute of Limitations

Victims of privacy violations must file a complaint at the District Court within three months from the date of the offense. This short window means that anyone whose conversation was illegally recorded needs to act quickly to seek legal recourse.

The Electronic Transactions Act 2063 (2006)

Nepal's Electronic Transactions Act 2063 governs digital communications and electronic records. While primarily focused on e-commerce and digital signatures, the Act criminalizes unauthorized access to, interception of, or tampering with electronic data.

For recording law purposes, the Electronic Transactions Act is relevant in two ways. First, it establishes that intercepting electronic communications (including VoIP calls, video chats, and messaging) without authorization is a criminal offense. Second, it provides a legal framework for the admissibility of electronic evidence, which affects how recordings are treated in court proceedings.

The Act has drawn criticism from press freedom organizations. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both raised concerns about its use to detain journalists and suppress speech, noting that the broad language of the Act gives authorities wide discretion in enforcement.

Recording in Public Places

Nepal's recording law has a narrow but important public exception. Section 293 of the Penal Code explicitly states that the prohibition on recording does not apply to "any speech or statement made publicly."

This exception covers scenarios such as:

• Political speeches at rallies or public events
• Press conferences and public government proceedings
• Public lectures and academic presentations
• Street performances and public demonstrations

However, the exception is limited. Recording a private conversation that happens to take place in a public location (a coffee shop, a park bench, a restaurant) does not qualify. The exemption applies to the nature of the speech, not the location. A conversation between two people at a public market is still a private conversation under the law.

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 could still be prosecuted.

This creates a gray area that Nepal's courts have not fully resolved. Street photography, documentary filmmaking, and citizen journalism all operate in uncertain legal territory.

Workplace Recording in Nepal

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

Employee Recording of Conversations

An employee who wants to record a conversation with a supervisor, coworker, or client needs the consent of all parties. Unlike some jurisdictions that recognize a workplace exception or whistleblower protection for recordings, Nepal's law provides no such carve-out.

This creates challenges for employees who want to document workplace harassment, discrimination, or unsafe conditions. Without consent from the other party, a recording made for self-protection purposes would still technically violate Section 293.

Employer Surveillance and CCTV

Nepal's CCTV Installation and Operation Procedures, 2072, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, establish rules for surveillance camera installation. Key requirements include:

• CCTV systems used in business or public-facing settings must be registered
• Cameras cannot be positioned to 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

For workplace CCTV, employers should ensure that cameras do not record audio (which would trigger Section 293 consent requirements) and that employees are informed about the presence and purpose of video surveillance.

Recommendations for Employers

Businesses operating in Nepal should consider the following steps:

• Post clear notices informing employees and visitors about any recording or surveillance
• Obtain written consent from employees regarding workplace monitoring as part of employment agreements
• Limit audio recording in the workplace to avoid triggering Penal Code violations
• Establish data retention policies for any CCTV footage
• Consult with local legal counsel about compliance with both the Privacy Act and CCTV regulations

Government and Law Enforcement Exceptions

Nepal's recording prohibition includes an exception for recordings made with "authorization from the relevant authority." This language gives law enforcement and intelligence agencies a legal basis for authorized surveillance.

The Special Service Bill

In May 2020, Nepal's National Assembly (Upper House) endorsed the controversial Special Service Bill, which would allow intelligence officials to intercept telephone conversations without a court order. Under the bill, the head of the intelligence agency would need to issue a written document explaining a legitimate reason for the interception, but no judicial authorization would be required.

The bill includes a penalty of seven years imprisonment for officials who misuse their interception authority. However, legal experts and opposition politicians have criticized the measure as a violation of the constitutional right to privacy. Former Nepal Bar Association chairperson Sher Bahadur KC stated publicly that the bill violates Article 28 of the Constitution.

As of 2026, the bill's status remains contested, and the tension between national security surveillance and individual privacy rights continues to shape Nepal's legal landscape.

Judicial Authorization

Outside of any special service legislation, law enforcement in Nepal can obtain authorization for wiretapping and recording through the courts. Judicial authorization requires a showing of probable cause and a specific investigative need. Recordings obtained without proper authorization may be challenged as inadmissible evidence.

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Nepal

Nepal's penalties for recording violations are organized across multiple statutes. Here is a summary:

Offense	Statute	Maximum Imprisonment	Maximum Fine
Recording conversations without consent	Penal Code, Section 293	2 years	NPR 20,000
Disclosing professional confidential information	Penal Code, Section 294	1 year	NPR 10,000
Photographing someone without consent	Penal Code, Section 295	1 year	NPR 10,000
Disfiguring or altering a photograph	Penal Code, Section 295	2 years	NPR 20,000
Selling/distributing photographs without consent	Penal Code, Section 296	3 years	NPR 30,000
Telephone tapping	Penal Code, Section 297	2 years	NPR 20,000
Privacy Act violations	Privacy Act 2075	3 years	NPR 30,000

All penalties allow for imprisonment, a fine, or both at the court's discretion. The three-month statute of limitations for filing complaints means that enforcement depends heavily on victims acting quickly.

By international standards, Nepal's penalties are moderate. The fines in particular are relatively low (NPR 20,000 is roughly USD 150 at current exchange rates), though the possibility of imprisonment adds significant deterrent weight.

Business Compliance and Practical Considerations

Call Recording

Businesses that record customer calls in Nepal must obtain consent from all parties before the recording begins. This typically means playing an automated disclosure at the start of a call and giving the caller an opportunity to decline. Unlike jurisdictions with one-party consent, simply having one party (the business) agree to record is not sufficient.

Data Storage and Security

Under the Privacy Act 2075, businesses that collect and store personal data (including call recordings, meeting recordings, or CCTV footage) must implement data security protocols. Cloud storage and remote access to recordings must comply with data protection standards.

Cross-Border Considerations

Nepal does not have comprehensive data transfer regulations comparable to the EU's GDPR. However, the Privacy Act's general protections apply to personal data regardless of where it is stored. Multinational companies operating in Nepal should ensure that recordings involving Nepali citizens are handled in compliance with local law, even if the data is processed or stored abroad.

Documentation

Businesses should maintain records of:

• Consent obtained for any recordings
• The purpose and legal basis for each recording
• Data retention schedules
• Access logs for stored recordings
• Procedures for responding to data subject requests

Press Freedom Concerns

Nepal's recording laws have drawn criticism from international press freedom organizations. The Committee to Protect Journalists noted that Sections 293, 294, and 295 of the National Penal Code could expose journalists to up to three years in prison for recording conversations or taking photographs as part of investigative reporting.

The constitutional Right to Information and a "public interest" exception in the National Civil Code 2074 could theoretically provide a defense for journalists. But these provisions remain judicially undefined. No court has clearly established when public interest recording by journalists overrides the consent requirements of the Penal Code.

Reporters Without Borders has called on Nepal to amend its criminal code to include explicit protections for journalistic recording in the public interest. Until such amendments are made, journalists operating in Nepal face legal uncertainty when conducting undercover investigations or recording sources.

How Nepal Compares to Neighboring Countries

Nepal's all-party consent standard places it among the stricter jurisdictions in South Asia. India, Nepal's largest neighbor, operates under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act, which generally permit one-party consent recording (though wiretapping by third parties requires government authorization). China, to the north, has extensive state surveillance powers but limited individual recording protections.

Within the broader South Asian region, Nepal's approach is closer to that of countries with strong privacy traditions. The constitutional guarantee of privacy in Article 28, combined with dedicated legislation in the Privacy Act, reflects an intent to protect individual communications from unauthorized surveillance.

However, enforcement remains a challenge. Limited judicial resources, the short three-month statute of limitations, and relatively low fines all reduce the practical impact of Nepal's recording laws. The gap between the law on paper and its enforcement in practice is something that residents, visitors, and businesses should keep in mind.