Supreme Court Clarifies Provisions of the House of Representatives Rules

The Supreme Court has issued an interim order to suspend the immediate implementation of two rules in the House of Representatives procedural regulations that were deemed inconsistent with the Constitution. Constitutional experts and political scientists have noted that the court clarified that a single party cannot amend the Constitution unilaterally based on the power it holds in Nepal’s unicameral parliamentary system.

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court issued the interim order against Rules 140(11) and 259 of the House of Representatives rules, which were passed by the Rastriya Swatantra Party on May 30. The five-judge bench, including the Chief Justice, stated in its order: “The provision of Rule 159 appears to contradict constitutional provisions. If the rules are implemented, there is a possibility of irreparable damage to constitutional principles, and the petitioners’ interests might be adversely affected. Therefore, an interim order is issued to maintain the status quo and prevent the immediate enforcement of these rules.”

The rules introduced by the Rastriya Swatantra Party removed the requirement for two-thirds majority approval from all members of both parliamentary houses for certain decisions. Kamaladevi Pant, leader of the Nepali Congress’s National Assembly parliamentary faction, along with others, filed a petition before the constitutional bench challenging these provisions, arguing they conflict with Nepal’s bicameral parliamentary framework.

Opposition parties opposed Rule 140(11) of the 2083 House of Representatives Rules, which pertain to the procedures for constitutional amendment bills, and Rule 259, which relates to parliamentary privileges. These two sections have been the primary source of contention, leading to widespread opposition against their inclusion in the House of Representatives rules.