- Nepal’s Supreme Court suspended two parliamentary rules to investigate their consistency with the Constitution regarding amendment procedures and legislative authority.
- Rule 140(11) faces scrutiny over its method for calculating the two-thirds majority required to pass constitutional amendments.
- Rule 259 is challenged for potentially giving parliamentary procedures priority over existing laws, questioning the extent of legislative rule-making power.
- The interim order halts these provisions until a final ruling determines if they violate Nepal’s fundamental constitutional principles.
Kathmandu, Nepal: The Supreme Court has temporarily stopped the implementation of two provisions in the House of Representatives Rules of Procedure, 2083, bringing Parliament’s rule-making authority and its limits under the Constitution into question.
A Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma on Wednesday ordered that Rules 140(11) and 259 remain on hold until the court makes a further decision.
The court said the provisions could be inconsistent with the Constitution and that putting them into practice immediately could cause harm that might not be possible to reverse.
The order is only interim. The court has not ruled that either provision is unconstitutional. That issue will be decided after the case is heard in full.
Dispute Over Constitutional Amendment Procedure
Much of the dispute centers on Rule 140(11), which deals with the passage of constitutional amendment bills.
Under the rule, when a constitutional amendment bill is returned by the National Assembly with a message, it can move forward if it receives a two-thirds majority calculated on the basis of the total number of members currently serving in both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly.
The petitioners have challenged this method of calculation.
Article 274(8) of the Constitution says a constitutional amendment bill must be passed by at least a two-thirds majority of the total number of members currently in office in both Houses of the Federal Parliament.
The petitioners argue that the two Houses should meet the two-thirds requirement separately because the House of Representatives and the National Assembly are separate chambers. In their view, adding the votes of members from both Houses and calculating a single two-thirds majority could conflict with the Constitution.
The court will have to settle that question in its final decision.
Parliament, however, can argue that the rule was intended to clarify the procedure for dealing with constitutional amendment bills. Whether that approach is allowed under the Constitution is now before the court.
Why the Two Houses Matter
Nepal’s Federal Parliament has two Houses—the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. They differ in how their members are elected or selected and in how they represent the public and the provinces.
Because of these differences, the role of each House becomes particularly important when Parliament deals with a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution sets a specific threshold for such amendments. This has led to the broader question of whether parliamentary rules can determine how that constitutional requirement is calculated.
For now, there is no final ruling that Rule 140(11) violates the Constitution.
What Is the Dispute Over Rule 259?
Rule 259 is the second provision challenged before the Supreme Court.
The rule gives the House of Representatives Rules of Procedure a special status in matters involving the House, its committees and its members. It also contains language stating that it applies regardless of what is provided in existing laws.
That wording has raised questions about the legal authority of parliamentary rules.
Article 104 of the Constitution allows Parliament to make rules for conducting its business. The issue before the court is whether that power also allows Parliament to give its internal rules an effect that could override or take precedence over other laws.
There is a difference between making rules to manage parliamentary proceedings and giving those rules a broader legal effect. The court will now have to examine where that line lies.
Suspension of Lawmakers Also Enters the Debate
The wider debate over the rules has also included provisions concerning the suspension of lawmakers.
Political parties have disagreed over how lawmakers facing serious criminal charges or being investigated should be treated while their cases are pending.
But the Supreme Court’s latest order should not be interpreted as a ruling against all provisions dealing with lawmakers’ suspension.
The court has specifically stopped the implementation of Rules 140(11) and 259. It has not, through this interim order, declared that lawmakers have been given immunity from criminal law.
Parliament’s Rule-Making Power
The case also raises a basic question about Parliament’s freedom to manage its own affairs.
Parliament needs rules to conduct meetings, run committees and regulate its internal proceedings. Such rules are a normal part of parliamentary practice.
At the same time, those rules must remain within the limits set by the Constitution.
Article 1 of the Constitution establishes it as the fundamental law of Nepal. As a result, parliamentary rules can be reviewed by the courts if there is a question about whether they conflict with the Constitution.
The case therefore goes beyond a disagreement between Parliament and the judiciary. At its core, it concerns how far Parliament can go when making rules for its own functioning.
How the Rules Reached the Supreme Court
The House of Representatives passed the Rules of Procedure, 2083, by majority vote on Jestha 17. Opposition parties had objected to some of the provisions during the discussions.
A rule does not become unconstitutional simply because opposition lawmakers oppose it. Majority voting is part of the normal parliamentary process.
The legal question is different: whether the provisions adopted by Parliament comply with the Constitution.
That is what the Supreme Court is now being asked to determine.
The Larger Debate Over Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional amendment has been a recurring issue in Nepal’s political debate. The Constitution itself provides a process for making amendments.
But changing the Constitution is different from changing an ordinary law. Amendments involving the electoral system, federal structure, government institutions or constitutional rights can affect how the state operates for years.
For that reason, proposals to amend the Constitution generally require discussion about why the changes are needed and what their possible consequences could be.
Recent political developments—including debates over social media restrictions, student protests and dissatisfaction with established political parties—may form part of the broader political context. But those developments do not, by themselves, determine whether a constitutional change is legally or institutionally appropriate.
New political parties may criticize the record of established parties, but once they form a government, they are also expected to explain and carry out the commitments they made to voters.
Questions for the Rastriya Swatantra Party-Led Government
The Rastriya Swatantra Party-led government has positioned itself as an alternative to Nepal’s established political parties. Its approach to governance, accountability and political reform is therefore likely to remain under public scrutiny.
If the government moves ahead with constitutional amendments, it will need to explain what it wants to change and why.
The public debate will also need to consider how the proposed changes could affect Parliament, constitutional bodies and other state institutions.
Constitutional amendment is therefore likely to remain a broader issue than any single political dispute or immediate government interest.
Final Decision Still Pending
For now, the Supreme Court has only suspended the implementation of Rules 140(11) and 259. The final decision is still pending.
The court will have to consider several constitutional questions, including how the two-thirds requirement under Article 274 should be calculated, how far Parliament’s rule-making authority under Article 104 extends, and what legal effect parliamentary rules can have in relation to other laws.
The eventual ruling could determine the future of the two disputed provisions and also provide guidance on how Parliament should frame its rules in the future.
The central question before the court is straightforward: Parliament has the power to make rules for its own proceedings, but that power is subject to the Constitution. The court’s final interpretation will determine where that constitutional boundary lies.
