This chapter examines the contested concept of constitutional identity in the comparative constitutional law literature and situates it in the specific jurisdictional context of Nepal. In particular, the analysis concentrates on the foundational function of constitutions and explores the relationship between constitutionalism, identity politics, and constitutional design. Nepal is an ideal case study for exploring the notion of constitutional identity because it sits uneasily within the traditional taxonomies used in the discipline. For instance, Nepal is the only South Asian country that was never colonised and whose legal system does not operate in English, but in the country’s national language, Nepali. This unusual level of historical continuity in the process of nation-building has complicated the construction of constitutional identity, as demonstrated by the embattled historical relationship between the Shah-centered “national monarchy” and democracy, the enduring and controversial position of Hinduism in the constitutional framework, and the patterns of legal discrimination on the basis of identity that persist in the new 2015 constitution.

This chapter investigates the tremendous contribution of Justice Kalyan Shrestha to the creation of a distinctively Nepali constitutional identity, a contribution that has manifested itself primarily through Supreme Court-level constitutional adjudication aimed at negotiating and synthesizing autochthonous legal culture with international legal norms. Justice Shrestha’s legacy can also be identified in the Court’s administrative reforms. Moreover, the historical and political context of Justice Shrestha’s tenure is crucial to explain the impact of his work. The eleven years that he spent on the Supreme Court’s bench, between 2005 and 2016, correspond to a period of great political turmoil, profound constitutional transformation, and dramatic democratic change, which had a direct impact on constitutional litigation. The chapter analyses the leading cases that Justice Shrestha adjudicated on and the key administrative reforms of the Court that he spearheaded. The doctrinal analysis is bolstered by a series of in-person conversations with Justice Shrestha reflecting on the nature of his contributions to the Supreme Court of Nepal, and ultimately his legacy.