Submit your Article

Opposition parties have recently intensified their criticism of the government. They have raised issues such as the ruling coalition's attempts to amend the constitution and the government's reluctance to convene the winter session of parliament. Additionally, they have criticized the administration for bypassing standard legislative procedures by introducing ordinances.

The government’s move to introduce constitutional changes has sparked significant debate. When the two ruling parties—the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress—formed an alliance, they signed a seven-point agreement that included revisions to various constitutional articles as a key component. The ruling parties argue that these amendments are necessary to ensure stability at both the central and provincial levels, which they view as a prerequisite for effective governance.

One major focus of these proposed reforms is the electoral system. The Congress and UML have proposed replacing the current Proportional Representation (PR) system, which they claim fosters instability. Under the current arrangement, 165 members of the Lower House are elected through the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method, while 110 are chosen through PR. The PR system allows smaller parties with fewer FPTP seats to wield significant influence in government formation. The proposed reforms include shifting the PR system to the National Assembly and electing all House of Representatives members via FPTP. They also suggest reducing the total number of PR seats from 110 to 60.

However, these proposals have faced strong opposition. The Maoist Centre and Madhesi parties have expressed concerns over the potential impact of such changes. The Maoist Centre, in particular, argues that eliminating the PR system from the House of Representatives—or relegating it to the National Assembly—undermines the foundational principles of Nepal's federal democratic republic, which aims to protect the rights of marginalized communities.

Madhesi parties have also opposed the proposed reforms, especially suggestions to raise the electoral threshold for national party eligibility from 3 percent to 5 or 6 percent. They argue that such changes would significantly disadvantage smaller and regional parties, potentially reducing their representation in parliament. Further, the ruling parties’ plan to streamline Nepal's governance structure—by reducing the total number of federal, provincial, and local representatives—has drawn criticism. Proposals to lower the number of local units from 753 to 500 and provincial lawmakers to save resources have left smaller parties feeling excluded and marginalized.

Despite their ambitions, the ruling parties face a significant hurdle: they lack the two-thirds majority in parliament required to pass these constitutional amendments. Meanwhile, the opposition has accused Prime Minister Oli’s administration of deliberately delaying the winter session of parliament, which is nearing its end. By avoiding parliament, the government has enacted major laws through ordinances, angering opposition parties such as the Maoist Centre and others.

These ordinances, which address issues related to investment, business, and land, have been welcomed by the corporate sector but criticized by opposition parties for undermining democratic norms. The opposition fears that the administration's reliance on ordinances over parliamentary debate sets a dangerous precedent for democracy.

One particularly contentious issue involves a potential ordinance that could split smaller parties facing internal discord. This legislation could result in parliamentarians returning to their original parties, weakening smaller factions like the Unified Socialist. For instance, four or five lawmakers might leave the Unified Socialist and rejoin the UML if this ordinance is implemented. Similarly, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) could face internal splits due to tensions between its leadership and estranged members.

The government’s delay in convening the winter session is also seen as an attempt to avoid parliamentary confrontation over sensitive issues, such as the legal troubles facing RSP Chair Rabi Lamichhane. By delaying the session, the administration hopes to resolve Lamichhane’s case and shield itself from opposition attacks.

These developments have widened the rift between the government and opposition parties. However, the opposition currently lacks the numbers to pose a significant threat to the administration. For now, the government remains secure, though political tensions continue to simmer.

The author is a freelance journalist

As in his first tenure (2017–2021), US President Donald Trump has signaled his intention to adopt an aggressive Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) to counter China's growing influence in the region. While his administration’s exact approach remains to be seen, Trump’s actions thus far suggest a more unilateral and hardline strategy compared to his predecessor, Joe Biden, who focused on fostering partnerships and multilateral cooperation in the region.

A key question is whether Trump will continue Biden’s approach of strengthening ties with allies and regional partners or pivot to a more isolated stance, prioritizing direct US action. Another point of uncertainty is whether his administration will focus on a military-centric strategy or emphasize economic engagement with countries in the Indo-Pacific. But one thing appears certain: the Trump administration's IPS strategy is likely to adopt a more confrontational tone. This approach could aggravate not only Beijing but also some US partners in the region.

Shortly after taking office, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a high-profile meeting with foreign ministers from Australia, India and Japan—the member nations of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or "Quad." A statement from the US State Department emphasized the group's shared commitment to a “"Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” where democratic values, rule of law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity are upheld.

The statement underscored the Quad's collective stance against unilateral actions that attempt to alter the regional status quo through coercion or force. “Our four nations maintain our conviction that international law, economic opportunity, peace, stability, and security—especially in the maritime domain—are essential for the prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region," the statement declared. It also highlighted commitments to strengthening regional maritime, economic, and technological security in response to rising threats, while promoting reliable and resilient supply chains. India, as the next host of the Quad Leaders' Summit, is set to play a pivotal role in steering the group's agenda.

China has criticized the Quad, labeling it as an attempt to encircle Beijing and undermine its strategic interests. China's opposition to the Quad's initiatives could escalate tensions in the region, especially as the Trump administration doubles down on its Indo-Pacific focus.

The Indo-Pacific Strategy introduced by the Biden administration in 2022 emphasized collaboration with India and other regional groupings to promote stability in South Asia. During Biden's tenure, India-US relations saw a significant deepening of their strategic partnership. However, Trump's return to power could strain this partnership, particularly due to his hardline stance on tariffs and trade. Trump has already suggested the possibility of imposing a 100 percent tariff on imports from BRICS nations, including India—a move that could severely impact the trade relationship between Washington and New Delhi.

Trump's approach to China is also likely to exacerbate existing tensions. Having already initiated a trade war with Beijing during his first term, Trump has signaled his intent to escalate economic pressure on China. In a recent press conference, he hinted at imposing a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all Chinese goods as early as Feb 1. Such a move would likely lead to further deterioration in US-China relations, with significant ramifications for the global economy.

Beyond trade, Trump’s previous decisions—such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization—have raised concerns about the US’ role in addressing global challenges. These moves could undermine US credibility and influence in the Indo-Pacific, where collaborative efforts on climate change, public health, and sustainable development are crucial.

Despite these challenges, Trump is expected to continue working with India to counter China's influence in the region. Reviving talks with North Korea, a hallmark of his first term, may also resurface as a diplomatic priority. However, Trump’s stance on Taiwan, a critical flashpoint in US-China relations, remains uncertain.

Nepal, a strategically located country in South Asia, is unlikely to remain unaffected by these geopolitical shifts. Nepal’s relations with both India and China are integral to its foreign policy, and any significant changes in US strategy toward these powers will have a ripple effect on Kathmandu's diplomatic calculus. For instance, further deterioration in US-China relations could constrain Nepal's ability to navigate its relationships with both nations.

Additionally, Trump's policies on global issues such as climate change, health and minority rights are likely to impact Nepal directly. The country, which is already grappling with the challenges of climate change, relies on international cooperation and funding to implement mitigation and adaptation strategies. A more isolationist US approach could hinder Nepal’s efforts in these areas. Changes in US funding or support for health services and rights related to sexual and gender minorities could also have social and economic repercussions.

As Trump’s administration takes shape, it will be crucial to monitor how his Indo-Pacific Strategy evolves and its implications for the region and beyond.

In the dynamic world of finance and business, bad debts are often perceived as failures—a sign of inefficiency or mismanagement. Similarly, in nature, a tree shedding its leaves is sometimes mistaken as a sign of decline. Yet, if we look closer, nature offers a profound insight: growth, decay and renewal are inevitable stages of a healthy, enduring cycle.

A leaf begins its journey as a vibrant, essential part of a tree, contributing to photosynthesis and nourishing the plant. Over time, it ages, loses its vitality and eventually falls to the ground. This process is not a failure but a necessary step in the tree's life cycle, clearing space for new growth and sustaining the tree’s longevity.  Bad loans in financial systems mirror this natural process. A loan begins with a promise of enabling growth for both borrower and lender. However, economic downturns, policy constraints, mismanagement or unforeseen circumstances can lead loans to become non-performing. Like a decayed leaf, a bad loan may no longer serve its original purpose but offers valuable lessons and opportunities for renewal.

Rather than viewing decayed leaves or bad loans as mere losses, we should see them as integral parts of a natural cycle. Decay represents not the end but the beginning of renewal. A tree sheds old leaves to sustain health and make room for fresh growth. Similarly, financial systems must accept the inevitability of some failures while focusing on recovery, restructuring and learning from past mistakes.

This perspective encourages resilience and optimism. While addressing the causes of bad loans is essential, it is equally important to recognize that not every loan will succeed. The goal is to ensure that the overall system remains robust—like a healthy tree that thrives despite shedding some leaves.

To preserve the health of a loan portfolio, just as trees need proper care, several key actions are essential. Financial institutions must start by performing comprehensive background checks and analysis before issuing any loans. Throughout the loan's lifetime, they should keep close watch on both the borrower's financial situation and broader market trends. When borrowers face difficulties, lenders should offer various forms of assistance, including loan modifications and expert advice. Likewise, lenders must stay nimble and ready to adjust their approach as economic conditions and industry dynamics shift.

Viewing bad loans as part of the renewal cycle will shift the narrative from despair to action. A tree does not stop growing because some leaves decay, nor should financial institutions or economies falter because of setbacks. New opportunities—fresh borrowers, businesses and innovations—will continue to drive progress. We must also recognize the contribution of both the fallen leaf and the bad loan. Each played a vital role in its trajectory, enabling progress along the way. Therefore, it is essential to elevate our mindset, address systemic gaps and move forward with a renewed focus on sustainability and resilience.

Bad loans are not the end of the road; they are reminders of the cyclical nature of growth. Blaming individuals or departments for a non-performing loan without clear evidence of intent overlooks the collective and systemic factors at play. By adopting the lessons of nature, financial systems can foster innovation, recovery and growth. Just as a tree flourishes despite shedding leaves, financial systems should focus on renewal and resilience. With a forward-looking mindset, we can create a robust ecosystem that thrives through challenges and embraces the natural process of growth and renewal.

The legal system incorporates a variety of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies designed to alleviate the burden on courts and provide specialized expertise. Despite the availability of alternative remedies, there is a growing tendency to bypass these channels and directly file writ petitions. This article emphasizes the extraordinary powers of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, to intervene in matters of public interest or constitutional questions when necessary. However, the misuse of this power for trivial matters threatens the efficiency and credibility of the legal system. The written petition to make the work done by the ruler of the state by the law also takes action both in the form of scriptures and weapons. But for some time now, writ petitions have been filed only for the sake of intellectual luxury and cheap popularity. Again and again, various newspapers have raised questions about the writ petition and the petitioner as a dummy writ petitioner. Increasing writ petitions in court is not a problem, but filing a writ petition for personal gain without using alternative remedies is also unfair to other parties.

Definition of writ

Article 133, Article 144 and Article 151 of the Constitution of Nepal provisions have been made regarding the rejection of writ petitions. The rights provided in these articles of the Constitution of Nepal are not limited rights. If the ruler and anybody governed by the ruler commits an illegal act, these articles are used to keep that act as it is, to cancel such an act and for other purposes as well. If there is no provision for remedy for the fundamental rights provided by the constitution or if there is provision, such remedy is found to be insufficient or ineffective, if there is any dispute of public rights or concern for the enforcement of such legal right, or if there is any dispute of public right or concern, or if there is any necessary order for the determination of legal or constitutional question, providing appropriate remedy, Courts, especially the Supreme Court, have the extraordinary right to exercise such rights or settle disputes. Such extraordinary jurisdiction of the court is writ.

Alternative treatment without experiment

Several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have been created to provide subject expertise and reduce the increasing burden on the courts and for many other reasons. It has also been mentioned in several judgments of the Supreme Court that writs should not be used until alternative remedies are available. In this way, the trend of trying to register a writ in the Supreme Court is increasing day by day, while the judgments of the respected Supreme Court are not taken into consideration. Although there is a hearing in the Administrative Court regarding several disputes of employees working in the civil service of Nepal Government, Nepal Federal Parliament Service, or public institutions, writs are filed regardless of the jurisdiction. Similarly, the Companies Act, 2063 provides that the registrar will hear the proceedings of the company registrar’s office. Although the law provides that a complaint can be filed before the registrar at the company registrar’s office, a writ is filed against the order made by the company registrar’s office without submitting an application to the registrar. The remedy is sought through the process of writ even on tax assessments made by other tax assessment agencies including the Customs Office. Writ remedy is sought on the subject of assessment of tax for the purpose of remedy without going to the Revenue Tribunal.

Difficulty of lawyers to file a writ

Not only common people but also law professionals, the tendency of filing writs to show themselves as famous and intellectual in front of the world is increasing day by day. Studying the number of writs filed in the Supreme Court on the last date, which is respected only by legal professionals, it seems that there is a group of legal professionals who are ready 24 hours a day to file a writ in the Supreme Court. Numerous wits have been filed by legal professionals on the same issue. Once the writ is registered, if an interim order is demanded in the writ, the court spends a lot of time on the writ, discussing it, informing the opponent, listening to the arguments of parties and opposition, etc. Even though the hearing of the petitions filed concerning legitimate demands and enforcement of rights takes years, that period cannot be considered as a waste of court time. But the hearing of writ petitions filed only for the sake of intellectual luxury and cheap popularity has caused injustice to the parties in other cases as well. Similarly, Legitimate cases deserving timely resolution are inevitably pushed to the back burner.

Personal recognition vs prolonged proceeding 

Legal processes frequently extend over extended periods, and when a case reaches its resolution, the urgency of the presently raised matter may have diminished. Societal perspectives and priorities can change, resulting in a reduced focus on the concerns initially raised in the writ. Public attention may shift towards new challenges, overshadowing the urgency of previous issues. Delays within the legal system, whether caused by backlog or procedural complexities, can diminish the core impact of the writ, making the relief less effective than if it had been promptly delivered. Additionally, the emergence of new issues tends to be overshadowed by persistent old ones, creating a loop where unresolved past issues overlap with present concerns. As proceedings unfold for these lingering issues, their significance often dwindles, perpetuating a cycle where the essence of each issue fades over time. This ongoing loop contributes to the accumulation of caseloads in the Supreme Court as people prefer to file in the Supreme Court instead of the other possible administrative court.

The role of legal practitioners and responsible advocacy 

The article emphasizes the importance of judicial discretion in addressing writ petitions, emphasizing the need for critical evaluation of each case’s merits and the use of court time. Judicial intervention should be reserved for matters of genuine public interest or constitutional significance, not for cases driven by personal motives. Establishing a code of ethics and guidelines for responsible advocacy can help curb the misuse of writs and maintain the sanctity of the legal profession.

The article recognizes the intellectual allure of engaging with the writ system but cautions against its misuse. Intellectual freedom should be balanced with a sense of responsibility. Legal professionals are urged to consider the broader implications of their actions and prioritize the pursuit of justice over personal recognition

Finally, writ itself is a beautiful subject. Just because the number of writs increases in the court, it cannot be considered as a misuse. Its wrong use has made it ugly. “Though our inclination often leans towards paths bathed in limelight, wisdom reminds us that brilliance isn’t solely defined by the spotlight.” So, to prevent the misuse of writs, legal practitioners and court administration should play an important role and shall prevent filing the writ for the sake of intellectual luxury.