Ncell condemns publication of share investigation report, calls it a complete mockery of law

Ncell has strongly condemned the government’s decision to make public a report prepared by an investigation committee led by former Auditor General Tankamani Sharma Dangal on the company’s share purchase and sale, arguing that the publication violated legal protections on privacy and confidentiality.

The government decided on August 11 to publish the report, titled “Ncell’s Share Purchase-Sale Related Study and Investigation Report, 2023 (2080),” which was made public on August 12 through the website of the Ministry of Information and Communications.

In a statement issued Thursday, Ncell said the report was published in the name of promoting good governance, transparency and citizens’ access to information, but that the move had instead exposed sensitive information that the company argues is required by law to remain confidential.

Ncell said the publication violated its constitutional right to privacy and warned that it reserved the right to pursue legal remedies under Nepal’s laws, as well as applicable international laws, treaties and agreements.

The company also expressed concern about the implications for foreign investment, saying the government’s action had sent an international message that Nepal is not sufficiently committed to protecting investor privacy and data confidentiality.

Dispute over court order

Ncell further argued that the publication of the report was inconsistent with a previous court decision.

According to the company, a writ petition seeking the publication of the investigation report on grounds of public interest was dismissed by the High Court on July 15, 2026, and the dismissal had become final.

Ncell said the government’s subsequent decision to publish the report, and its actual publication, constituted a serious violation of the constitutional and legal obligation to respect court orders and judicial decisions.

The company described the publication of a report that it says had been held confidential by the court as a “historically unfortunate event.”

Ncell maintained that information gathered by an investigation committee during an inquiry remains confidential. It said the government could use such information to determine whether an offence had been committed, conduct further investigations and initiate prosecution where necessary, but argued that this did not give the government authority to make the information freely accessible to the general public. “No law has authorised such action,” it has stated.

Ncell cites privacy laws

Ncell said the publication breached its privacy rights under Article 28 of the Constitution of Nepal and provisions of the Individual Privacy Act, 2018.

The company specifically cited statutory protections concerning the privacy of property, documents, data, correspondence, personal character and electronic media. It also referred to confidentiality provisions under the Income Tax Act and Value Added Tax Act concerning taxpayer information.

According to Ncell, the government’s action also affected the rights of its shareholders, directors and other stakeholders.

The company argued that publication of such information would require legislative authorization, along with proper cause and justification. It said information concerning a person’s property, documents, data and transactions cannot be disclosed or made accessible to third parties without the concerned person’s consent where the law protects such information.

Ncell characterized the publication as a breach of the government’s constitutional and legal commitments, describing it as a “Breach of Trust and Confidence.” 

It further describes, “An action by the State that is contrary to the legal guarantee that a person’s property, transactions and documents remain confidential is a complete mockery of the law.”

Possible legal action

Ncell said the Individual Privacy Act provides for punishment of violations and allows claims for compensation in cases covered by the law.

The company said it would consider necessary action in response to the publication, while alleging that the disclosure of confidential information had caused irreparable harm to the company.

It also claimed that the government’s action had affected the fundamental rights of the company, its shareholders, directors and beneficiaries, including rights relating to dignity and freedom of trade and business.

The government has yet to publicly respond to Ncell’s latest statement. The dispute is likely to intensify the broader debate over the balance between government transparency and the confidentiality of commercially and legally protected information.