Bagmati Restricted Driving-Licence Medical Checks to 17 Providers After Court Order

Bagmati Province restricted driving-licence applicants' medical examinations to 17 listed health institutions in August 2026, following a Supreme Court interim order that halted a federal attempt to open the process to doctors licensed by the Nepal Medical Council.

The decision, applied through the province's seven transport offices, meant applicants had to use a designated institution linked to the office handling their application. The province's published notice dated 20 Shrawan 2083 and contemporaneous reports described the limitation as an interim arrangement pending further directions.

The policy reversed the practical effect of an earlier federal circular. On July 20, the Department of Transport Management's request to provincial transport authorities was reported as calling for acceptance of medical certificates issued by NMC-registered doctors. The department cited congestion, extra financial burdens on applicants and the involvement of limited groups or syndicate-like practices as reasons to broaden access. Those concerns were raised by the department; they are not a judicial finding of collusion or wrongdoing.

Clinics already operating under provincial contracts challenged that federal shift. On July 28, a single bench of the Supreme Court issued an interim order preserving the services of the petitioning providers and suspending implementation of the federal instructions pending final disposal of the case. The court's reported reasoning concerned the disruption and potential losses facing clinics that had invested under existing agreements. An interim order is not a final determination of whether the province's selection process was competitive or fair.

On 20 Shrawan, Bagmati issued a ministerial decision limiting online access to designated providers. Both MeroAuto and EAuto Nepal reported that 17 institutions had been listed for the seven provincial licensing offices, with applicants directed to the providers associated with their chosen office.

There is a distinction between protecting existing providers from abrupt termination and establishing that other qualified doctors must remain excluded. The publicly reported court order dealt with continuity of contracted services; the province's subsequent implementation determined which providers could serve new applicants through its online system.

The province has previously defended its medical-check framework as an improvement in transparency, digital management and patient choice. Reporting on an earlier provincial decision described a uniform medical examination charge of NPR 175 and a 17-provider list. That stated charge should not be treated as proof of the fee actually paid by every applicant or of the revenue received by any provider.

Several public-interest questions remain unanswered in the sources reviewed: how the 17 institutions were selected, whether competing doctors could apply on equal terms, the term and value of their agreements, how examination fees are distributed, and what objective safeguards would be needed to permit broader participation without reducing medical or road-safety standards.

Published reports establish the conflict among the federal policy, provincial implementation and the interim court protection. They do not establish improper personal benefit by any named doctor, clinic or official. The complete contracts, procurement records, portal-access criteria, complaint records and any subsequent court orders would be needed to assess whether the restrictions were justified and what they cost applicants.