Political Parties Maintain Positions in First Meeting on Constitution Amendment Debate

March 25, Kathmandu – The Constitution Amendment Discussion Committee, formed under the leadership of political advisor Asim Shah by Prime Minister Balendra Shah, has commenced its deliberations. The committee began discussions by summoning representatives from parties represented in the House of Representatives and National Assembly to the Prime Minister’s Office at Singha Durbar.

“Since it was the first day, today’s session was more of an introductory meeting,” said Mohanlal Acharya, leader of the Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP), who participated in the meeting on behalf of his party. At this initial meeting, committee coordinator Shah outlined the mandate to prepare the constitution amendment discussion paper within 60 days. “A discussion paper should be prepared within 7 days, followed by consultations leading to completion of the work within 60 days,” he explained.

Following this, detailed information was provided concerning the amendable and non-amendable provisions of the constitution. Legal Secretary Pushkar Sapkota from the Prime Minister’s Office and Secretary Indira Dahal from the Ministry of Law delivered briefings. Subsequently, party representatives shared their respective views.

RSP leader Acharya emphasized that the constitution amendment debate aligns with his party’s manifesto and expressed support for the committee’s work. “The committee should establish necessary subcommittees and consult all stakeholders,” he added.

Dr. Bhishma Adhikari, representing the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), stated that although there is no disagreement over the proposal to amend the constitution, complications have arisen due to the party’s chairman being held in police custody. “Our party chairman is currently in police custody, so no discussions on constitutional amendments have taken place yet,” he said. “Once he is released, meetings will be held and we will prepare the agenda. For now, I cannot comment further.” He also recommended sufficient dialogue given the complexity of the subject. “The issue of constitutional amendment should not be handled in a closed manner; it requires discussion with all parties and consensus,” he stressed.

Dev Gurung of the Nepal Communist Party affirmed his party’s commitment to support constitutional amendments but highlighted the importance of making them acceptable to all. “He spoke extensively about procedural matters and stated that there is no disagreement on the constitution amendment,” sources from the meeting revealed.

Representatives from the Labour Culture Party, Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP), Loktantrik Socialist Party (LSP), and Rastriya Janamorcha presented their respective agendas for constitutional amendments. “They submitted agendas that their parties intend to advance during the amendment process,” meeting sources said.

Labour Culture Party lawmaker Dhurvraj Rai called for serious discussions on controlling corruption, developing soil-friendly national policies, and national identity. “Measures to eliminate corruption must be clearly specified,” he insisted. “Attention should be given to formulating soil-appropriate policies.”

RPP’s Gyanendra Shahi raised issues concerning establishing a Hindu state and the monarchy. “He brought up the topics of a Hindu state and monarchy,” according to sources.

Representatives from Madhesi parties recalled their longstanding disagreement with the current constitution. JSP’s Surendra Kumar Jha and LSP’s Abhas Lal expressed opposition to the constitution since its promulgation. Rastriya Janamorcha’s Durga Paudel also raised the issue of abolishing federalism. Paudel’s demand to dissolve provinces received support from RPP’s Shahi. “They agreed that constitutional amendments should be made to abolish the provinces,” meeting participants confirmed.

No representatives from the Nepali Congress attended the discussion. Party leaders explained that delays in selecting representatives caused Congress’s absence at the meeting.