Why Did the Parliamentary Rules of 2083 Spark Controversy and Conflict in Parliament?
Photo source, Nepal Photo Library
Despite strong opposition from opposition MPs, the House of Representatives passed the new rules late Sunday night. Dramatic scenes unfolded in the parliamentary chamber.
The anger among opposition parties remains high. Dialogue with MPs has revealed two main points of contention.
The opposition has identified Sections 140(11) and 259 of the new rules as the core of the dispute.
What Are the Key Provisions Raised by the Opposition?
Section 140(11) concerns procedures related to constitutional amendment bills, while Section 259 links the rules to parliamentary privileges.
Opposition parties assert that the government has exploited its majority to push the rules forward in violation of the constitution. However, MPs from the Rastriya Swatantra Party (Raswapa) reject these allegations, arguing no constitutional breach has occurred.
Although several amendments were proposed, the opposition has accused the bill of being rushed through despite significant dissent.
The elected House of Representatives traditionally formulates new rules to govern its sessions.
These 2083 rules replaced the regulations established after the 2079 elections.
Were New Provisions Introduced to Favor Ravi Lamichhane?
Photo source, NurPhoto via Getty Images
Section 259 of the new rules, titled “Applicability of Rules,” states, “Without regard to previous laws, these rules shall operate as special laws on par with federal laws and shall apply to committees, the assemblies, and members.”
It further specifies that these rules will serve as parliamentary privileges for members of the House of Representatives.
This provision did not exist in the old rules, prompting opposition parties to accuse the new rules of granting MPs privileges above other federal laws.
Some allege that this clause was added specifically to protect Raswapa Chairman Ravi Lamichhane.
Nepali Congress MP Nischal Rai commented, “In criminal matters, all citizens should be subject to the same laws; there should be no special provisions just because one is an MP.”
According to UML MP Mohammad Estiyak Rai, the language of the rules treats MPs differently.
“Ordinary citizens are subject to general law, so applying different laws to elected MPs contradicts fundamental sovereign principles and is unacceptable,” he stated.
On Poush 8, 2078 (December 23, 2021), Ravi Lamichhane was suspended from parliament on charges of money laundering.
Nearly a year later, just before the election on Falgun 21 (March 4, 2023), he was released from jail. On Jestha 8 (May 22), the Kaski District Court ordered the dismissal of money laundering and organized crime charges against him.
Nepali Congress Central Member Nischal Rai opposed the provision allowing removal of members obstructing parliamentary proceedings.
UML Chief Spokesperson Ain Mahar said that giving the rules the status of a special law weakens the country’s constitutional governance.
“We strongly opposed it, but the rules were fast-tracked due to the interests of Raswapa’s own MPs,” he added.
However, Raswapa has indicated that amendments to the rules are necessary.
Raswapa MP and lawyer Jayjyamani Nyaupane stated that parliamentary privileges do not cause problems.
“The constitution permits parliamentary privileges. Article 103 grants privileges and Article 104 provides for the creation of rules. So why the controversy?” Nyaupane questioned.
What Is the Controversy Regarding the Constitutional Amendment Bill?
Photo source, RSS
Opposition parties claim that the provisions included in Section 140(11) of the new rules contradict the constitution.
This subsection, titled “Procedure for Constitutional Amendment Bill,” was declared controversial by UML Chief Spokesperson Ain Mahar, who is also a member of the rules drafting committee.
It states, “After the bill is passed by the House of Representatives and forwarded to the National Assembly, it shall be sent to the President for certification only if the votes received there amount to two-thirds of the total members of both houses combined.”
Opposition leaders argue that this provision conflicts with Article 274 of the constitution and that no such arrangement existed in previous regulations.
UML MP Mohammad Estiyak Rai said, “Constitutional amendments require two-thirds majorities in both houses, but this rule allows amendments based on the vote of only one house, which is unconstitutional.”
“Only if, after returning from the National Assembly, the two-thirds majority of total members is achieved may the Speaker be granted the arbitrary authority to certify the bill,” he added.
Another opposition MP, Ain Mahar, labeled the provision unconstitutional and accused the ruling party of arrogance.
Nepali Congress MP Nischal Rai said the subsection increased ambiguity.
He noted that legal remedies could be sought through the courts if necessary.
Ruling party MPs deny any constitutional violation.
Raswapa MP Jayjyamani Nyaupane said, “The constitution is what it is. Differences in opinion can be resolved. The federal parliament includes both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly, and judicial interpretation exists. The new rules have no impact on the constitution.”
Opposition MPs have also expressed dissatisfaction with other provisions.
Nepali Congress MP Nischal Rai opposed the provision in the preamble of the rules that removes obstacles to stopping discussions.
Opposition parties warn that passing rules without their participation could undermine parliamentary peace and effectiveness.
This news is also available on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. You may subscribe to our channel for support.