'If not election, restoration of Parliament is essential'
The legal practitioners and intellectuals have said that if the election to the House of Representatives (HoR) is not held on March 5, restoration of HoR is imperative.
During an interaction organized by the Democratic Thoughts Society on Saturday, the speakers, however, argued that the political parties must not dodge the election once the atmosphere is prepared. The country must not be left in indecision and political instability for long if the election is not held on time, they added.
They further said it was an unprecedented uprising last September spearheaded by the Gen Z youths. The country suffered irreparable loss. So, those involved in the violence must be brought to book. The Gen Z protest was infiltrated that caused massive damage. It requires proper investigation.
On the occasion, senior advocates Harihar Dahal and Upendra Keshari Neupane said election to HoR must be made the first priority. If the election is eluded, the HoR needs reinstatement, they underlined.
Former Chairman of the Society, Dr Kedar Narsing KC, said the government was yet to prepare the atmosphere for the election with proper peace and security. Winning political trust by the government is equally imperative, he added.
Similarly, Society's Chairman Kul Chandra Wagle expressed worry over the democracy Nepalis got after a huge struggle and sacrifice. All Nepalis should be united for creating an atmosphere of trust and resolving political crises.
Also speaking on the occasion were Chairman of Nepal Medical Association, Dr Anil Karki, and Chairman of Democratic Lawyers' Association, Sitaram KC. They wondered why the political parties were trying to avoid an election citing the security situation.
Why Karki-led government is failing to deliver on its promises
Time is running out for former Sushila Karki’s government to prepare for the March 5 elections. Tasked solely with holding polls within a stipulated timeframe, the administration has failed to create a conducive political and security environment. Engagement with political parties has been minimal, the security situation remains fragile, and confusion persists over election security modalities. Political parties, meanwhile, remain reluctant to participate. Deep-seated problems within the government are compounding the crisis.
Flawed beginning
From day one, Karki adopted an overtly anti-party stance, engaging primarily with self-styled Gen-Z activists who lack institutional legitimacy. Allowing such individuals to attend government meetings eroded trust and convinced political parties that the administration sought to undermine them. Her early hints at arresting party leaders further deepened hostility, damaging her neutrality as the head of an election government.
Anti-party approach
From the outset, Karki adopted an overtly anti-party posture, choosing to engage with self-styled Gen-Z activists over institutional actors. Allowing such individuals to attend cabinet meetings blurred the line between activism and governance, eroding trust. For political parties, this was confirmation that the government was not neutral but adversarial. Her early hints at arresting senior leaders deepened hostility and exposed a worrying authoritarian streak in an ostensibly non-partisan caretaker government.
Alienating the old guard
Karki has publicly said she is not interested in meeting senior leaders of major parties, suggesting they should retire to make way for a younger generation. This statement not only offended top leaders, but also ignored the political reality that leadership change is unlikely before party conventions. As prime minister, she should have engaged directly with senior leaders instead of delegating the task to the President.
Misreading the Gen-Z movement
Despite aligning herself with the Gen-Z protests, Karki has shown little understanding of their structure or motives. The movement is not a unified entity but a loose network of groups with divergent demands. She has admitted meeting over 20 factions with conflicting agendas, making it impossible to satisfy all sides. Her struggle to select ministers, with youth factions opposing each other’s nominees, exposes her lack of strategic direction.
Unclear response to September violence
The government has yet to clarify its stance on the September 8–9 violence, during which several people were killed and property vandalized. Police arrests have angered Gen-Z activists, while the administration has failed to distinguish between cases warranting prosecution and those eligible for amnesty. The hurried formation of the Gauri Bahadur Karki-led probe panel without consensus from parties or youth representatives has further muddied the waters.
Incomplete cabinet
Despite two expansions, Karki’s cabinet remains incomplete. Rather than forming a broad-based team with diverse expertise, she has failed to reach out to capable professionals and independent figures. This delay has weakened the government’s efficiency and credibility.
Populist and risky decisions
Karki has favored populist moves over substantive reforms. Her decision to withdraw security personnel from senior political leaders was rash, especially amid growing threats. Major parties now rely on their youth wings for protection. Similarly, police raids on relatives of political figures were conducted without transparency or explanation, reinforcing perceptions of bias.
Leadership under pressure
Karki’s public remarks suggest she is struggling to assert herself as prime minister. She has admitted facing pressure from influential figures, including Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah, over arrests linked to the deaths of 19 students. Her inability to act independently or withstand external influence has raised doubts about her authority and neutrality.
Economic neglect
The private sector, already battered by prolonged protests, has received little government support. Instead of ensuring business security, the administration worsened the crisis by disrupting electricity supply to industries. As a result, more than two dozen factories have shut down, deepening economic distress.
Diplomatic mismanagement
Karki’s handling of foreign affairs has been equally poor. It took more than a month to brief the diplomatic community in Kathmandu about her government’s priorities. The sudden recall of ambassadors from 11 countries, without clear justification, will leave key missions vacant for at least a year—even if elections proceed on schedule. Her claim that some ambassadors questioned the government’s longevity is unconvincing and reflects poor judgment.
A familiar pattern
Despite promising a break from the past, Karki’s administration increasingly mirrors previous party-led governments—frequent bureaucratic transfers, non-consultative decisions, populist gestures, and a failure to maintain neutrality. With time running out, Prime Minister Sushila Karki’s government appears adrift—caught between Gen-Z idealism and political realism, and struggling to deliver on its most basic mandate: holding credible elections.
PM Karki calls for cooperation from all sides for elections
Prime Minister Sushila Karki has called for support and cooperation from all sides to make the election scheduled for March 5 a success.
Prime Minister Karki held a discussion with the editors of several media at the PM residence, Baluwatar, on Friday regarding the country's contemporary political affairs, elections preparation, and government's performance, the PM secretariat informed.
Sharing that the government has put all-out efforts to create atmosphere for the election, and its positive results are on anvil, PM Karki informed that consultations were held with Gen Z groups and political parties in the meantime to that end.
Prime Minister Karki stated that she intended to ensure the success of the elections by gaining massive trust and hand over the new government before her exit.
Highlighting the government's prime objective to maintain good governance and conduct elections, the Head of the Government said the March 5 elections would be accomplished, and executive power would be transferred by encouraging the political parties to enthusiastically participate in elections rather than restricting them.
She took the leadership of the government in a challenging situation, Prime Minister Karki said, adding she would, however, not be scared of criticism.
Finance Minister Rameshwor Prasad Khanal, Minister for Energy, Water Resources, Irrigation, Kulman Ghising, Home Minister Om Prakash Aryal, Law Minister Anil Kumar Sinha and Minister for Communications and Information Technology Jagdish Kharel attended the meeting.
Will Nepal’s apex court revive Parliament?
Nepal’s Supreme Court has begun preliminary hearings on more than a dozen writ petitions challenging the formation of the interim government led by Sushila Karki and her subsequent decision to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR) before the end of its term.
The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court will hear a total of 16 writ petitions. Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut has already given his consent to forward all cases to the bench. The petitioners have argued that Karki’s appointment as interim prime minister is unconstitutional, as Nepal’s 2015 Constitution does not allow non-members of Parliament to assume the prime ministerial position.
Furthermore, while appointing her as prime minister, no specific constitutional article was cited. The Office of the President has argued that Karki was appointed under Article 61 of the Constitution, which relates to the president’s duty to safeguard the Constitution. However, in 2015, all provisions related to the formation of government were clearly outlined under Article 76. Karki was appointed interim head following the GenZ protests on Sept 12.
Another argument raised by the petitioners concerns Article 132(2) of the Constitution. Lawyers Bipana Sharma and Ayush Badal contend that a former chief justice cannot hold any government office except within the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Article 132(2) states: “No person who has once held the office of Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be eligible for appointment to any government office, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.”
This means that, except for roles in the NHRC, former chief justices and Supreme Court judges cannot assume any other government positions. However, those in power argue that the current government emerged from the GenZ revolution, and therefore, its constitutionality and legality should not be judged through the lens of “normal times.”
Nepal had faced a similar situation in 2013, when then–Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi led an interim government. His appointment was also challenged in the Supreme Court, but the court delayed its hearing until after Regmi stepped down upon completing the elections. Later, Supreme Court judges were divided over the verdict. Interestingly, current Prime Minister Karki, who at the time was serving as a senior justice, had expressed that Regmi’s appointment went against the spirit of the interim constitution. Now, legal observers are keen to see how Karki will defend her own appointment.
Karki faces three major constitutional challenges: A non-parliamentarian assuming the office of prime minister; the lack of any cited constitutional article in her appointment by President Ramchandra Paudel; and the restriction under Article 132(2), which bars former justices from holding government office.
Similarly, several writs have been filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Shortly after taking office, Karki recommended to President Poudel that Parliament be dissolved. Reports suggest that Karki believed she could only serve as prime minister after Parliament’s dissolution. Media sources also claim she faced pressure from Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah to dissolve Parliament immediately. Legal experts, however, argue that Karki’s appointment was justified under the “doctrine of necessity.”
Still, constitutional experts point out that, under Article 76(7), the prime minister can recommend dissolution of Parliament only after all attempts to form a new government have failed. On this very basis, the Supreme Court in 2020 and 2021 had reinstated the Parliament dissolved by then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, ruling that the House could still produce a new government. The current House of Representatives, elected in 2022, is set to complete its term in 2027.
As the Supreme Court prepares to begin hearings on the 16 petitions, the prospects of the March 5 elections look increasingly uncertain. Dialogue between the government and political parties has begun, but it has not helped rebuild trust. Political leaders continue to raise concerns about security, saying they still fear openly holding meetings and rallies. Nepal Police has yet to recover the 1,200 weapons looted during the Sept 9 protests, and more than 4,000 escaped inmates remain at large and reportedly involved in criminal activities.
Party leaders claim they are still receiving threats. In this context, if elections do not take place on March 5, the interim government may lose its legitimacy, creating a new political vacuum. Senior leaders of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML argue that the only way to preserve the current Constitution is for the Supreme Court to reinstate Parliament.
They contend that restoring Parliament would provide a legitimate institution to address the demands of the GenZ protesters, including ending corruption, ensuring systemic reform, and curbing nepotism. NC and UML leaders also say that, as their party offices have been destroyed and many leaders have lost their homes, the current environment is not conducive to holding elections.
Devraj Ghimire, Speaker of the dissolved House of Representatives, is also strongly advocating for Parliament’s restoration. He is currently consulting with legal experts to create a constitutional and political pathway for the reinstatement of the House.
