## Facts

- Uterus prolapse and related reproductive-health harms were reported as widespread among women in Nepal, causing serious physical suffering as well as hardship in family and social life.
- The petition attributed the prevalence and severity of the condition to conditions such as lack of nutritious food during pregnancy, discrimination against women, low awareness of reproductive health, and limited access to effective medical care, trained practitioners, and necessary medical equipment.
- Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma, on behalf of herself and the public-interest group Pro-Public, filed a public-interest writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Government of Nepal and related state bodies responsible for health and women’s affairs.
- The petition framed the government’s failure to address uterus prolapse as a violation of constitutional rights, including the right to life and women’s constitutionally guaranteed reproductive-health rights.
- The petition requested court-ordered steps including drafting a bill on women’s reproductive health, submitting it to Parliament, and running public-awareness programming through national media.
- The government pointed to existing budgets and activities and argued, in substance, that courts should not control legislative and executive priorities and that the petition did not show individualized injury to a specific claimant.
- The Supreme Court considered the petition as public-interest litigation brought to secure effective enjoyment of fundamental rights, including rights informed by Nepal’s constitutional provisions and international human-rights commitments.

## Issues

1. Whether a public-interest petitioner may seek enforcement of women’s reproductive-health rights regarding uterus prolapse without showing individualized harm to a named victim.
2. Whether women’s constitutional right to reproductive health (and related right-to-life interests) is directly enforceable and requires affirmative state action, not merely formal recognition or budget allocations.
3. Whether the Supreme Court may issue mandamus directing the government to take concrete steps, including initiating legislation and implementing programs, when state action is inadequate to protect fundamental rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court treated the case as maintainable public-interest litigation and did not require individualized victim standing given the nature of the alleged rights violations and barriers to ordinary litigation.
- The Court held that women’s right to reproductive health under the Interim Constitution is a fundamental right that is enforceable through judicial review and is not satisfied by paper guarantees alone.
- The Court found the State’s response inadequate where the government could not show effective implementation yielding practical access to prevention, treatment, and support for women suffering from uterus prolapse.
- The Court issued mandamus directing the responsible state bodies to take steps that included:
  - preparing a bill addressing women’s reproductive health (including uterus prolapse), and taking steps to have it submitted for legislative consideration;
  - establishing and expanding services for prevention, treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation for women affected by uterus prolapse, with needed personnel and equipment; and
  - conducting education and awareness programs through appropriate national media and outreach so that women and communities have usable information about reproductive health and available care.

## Legal Principles

- Public-interest litigation is an available vehicle to enforce fundamental rights affecting large groups where individual litigation is impractical and where the alleged harm is widespread.
- The constitutional right to reproductive health is justiciable and includes duties of the State to take positive steps so the right can be exercised in real conditions.
- For social and economic rights, courts may assess whether government measures provide practical benefits; budget lines and general statements of policy are not enough without implemented services.
- International human-rights instruments ratified by Nepal may guide the meaning and scope of constitutional rights concerning health, equality, and non-discrimination.
- Separation-of-powers concerns do not bar judicial directives where state institutions fail to carry out constitutional responsibilities to secure fundamental rights; mandamus may require concrete action toward legislation and implementation.

## Conclusion

In Prakash Mani Sharma v. Government of Nepal (Uterus Prolapse Case), the Supreme Court of Nepal treated uterus prolapse as a rights-based public-interest matter, held that women’s constitutional right to reproductive health (linked to the right to life) is enforceable and requires effective state action, found existing government efforts insufficient absent implemented services, and ordered the government to pursue legislation and operational programs—along with public education—so women can obtain real access to prevention, treatment, and related support.


Prakash Mani Sharma v. Government of Nepal (Uterus Prolapse Case), SCN Writ No. 064 (2008)