Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari is desperately trying to join CPN-UML, vowing to uphold the ideology of her late husband, Madan Bhandari, who advocated for Nepal’s communists to adapt to multiparty democracy. Some argue that Bhandari’s re-entry is justified, while others say it is inappropriate for a former head of state to rejoin party politics.
The UML has officially refused to renew the party membership of Bhandari, blocking her from rejoining active politics. The party clarified that as per the party statute, only the Central Committee can decide on membership renewal. Since the committee has established that there is no requirement for Bhandari to return to active politics, the question of membership does not arise.
Party chair and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has long maintained that it is against the constitution for an ex-head of state to resume partisan politics. He contends that the Constitution of Nepal 2015 does not envision the active political stances taken by a ceremonial head of state, a symbol of national unity and neutrality, even after retirement.
Bhandari, who approved two unconstitutional decisions of the Oli-led cabinet to dissolve the parliament, recently said she is aware that this incident will continue to follow her. She, who endorsed the controversial recommendations for parliament dissolution at Oli’s recommendation, however, says that she was not under any pressure while endorsing it. According to her, she just implemented what the cabinet decided, and followed the constitutional provisions.
Once seen as close political allies—supporting his ambitions and him advancing her profile—the Oli-Bhandari alliance is decidedly over.
Bhandari’s election in 2015 as Nepal’s first female president presented an image of a neutral head of state in line with Nepal’s constitution. But behind the mask of impartiality lay a fraught relationship with the ruling communist force—and its most dominant leader, Oli.
Let’s revisit the principal flashpoints of the contentious choices of Bhandari while she served as president: the National Assembly process delays, the controversial swearing in of her second term, the two dissolutions of Parliament, and the citizenship and financial-governance ordinance standoffs that pulled her further into partisan controversy. It leads up to the present standoff over UML leadership, explaining how the erstwhile united front has since fragmented under pressures of constitutional interpretation, personal ambition, and shifting political norms.
Shortly after the 2017 general elections, the outgoing government led by Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba presented an ordinance for calling the first National Assembly elections. Pursuant to Article 129, these elections had to be held within certain timeframes, yet Bhandari left the ordinance hanging for weeks, delaying the formation of the upper house. She was accused by critics of succumbing to UML pressure to slow a process that was Congress-skewed; Prime Minister Deuba condemned openly ‘undue influence’, and the debate ignited a national uproar over government paralysis.
In a surprising twist, Bhandari ratified the ordinance on 29 Dec 2017—but only after retracting the original proposal and replacing it with the Congress‑sponsored version. This abrupt volte‑face cleared the way for a new government, but did little to assuage concerns about her impartiality. The episode hinted at an emerging modus vivendi: Bhandari would delay until political pressure reached fever pitch, then step in to resolve crises on terms that often advantaged Oli’s party.
Barely weeks into Oli’s premiership, a second test of Bhandari’s resolve emerged. In Feb 2018, Deuba’s government nominated three members to the upper house. Bhandari refused to endorse them, deferring action even after Oli replaced Deuba on Feb 15. Once Oli sent his own slate of nominees, she approved them immediately—effectively dismissing Deuba’s choices without public explanation.
By then, crucial weeks had slipped by, delaying the assembly’s functioning. Legal scholars denounced the move as a violation of Article 79, arguing that the president’s discretion must not be wielded as a partisan weapon. Though no formal penalties followed, the episode further eroded Bhandari’s reputation for neutrality—and cemented her reputation within UML circles as a loyal ally.
When Bhandari took office again in March 2018, she was faced with another constitutional impediment. Her swearing-in by Chief Justice Gopal Parajuli took place just a few minutes after a Judicial Council notification had ostensibly retired Parajuli on the basis of having exceeded the retirement age. Legal appeals soon challenged the validity of the presidency as well, arguing that the oath taken unlawfully invalidated her mandate.
Though the Supreme Court ultimately allowed the challenge to proceed, the controversy underscored the delicate interplay between executive and judicial branches. Critics argued that Bhandari’s eagerness to proceed with the ceremony—despite clear legal questions—revealed a willingness to ignore procedural safeguards whenever political expedience demanded.
The apex of Bhandari and Oli’s controversial partnership came in late 2020. After losing a confidence vote on Dec 20, Prime Minister Oli advised dissolution of the House of Representatives under Article 76 (1), and Bhandari issued the proclamation that same night. The suddenness of the move—announced at midnight, without parliamentary debate—triggered nationwide protests and mass legal challenges. Seven ministers resigned in protest, and constitutional lawyers decried the act as a blatant usurpation of popular mandate.
The Supreme Court in Feb 2021 invalidated the dissolution as unconstitutional, ordering the House to convene. Unfazed, Oli instructed—and Bhandari sanctioned—a second one in May 2021, this time under Article 76 (5). Protests and petitions again followed. On July 12, the court nullified the second proclamation and named Deuba prime minister, rebuking the president for serially signing off on acts unconstitutional.
These back‑to‑back decisions—rubber‑stamped with minimal scrutiny—fractured public trust. Observers chastised the president for sacrificing constitutional fidelity to prop up Oli’s political fortunes, and for ignoring warnings about the humanitarian costs amid a surging pandemic.
Beyond parliamentary maneuvers, Bhandari’s role in citizenship law reforms sparked further debate. In May 2021, during the Covid-19 pandemic and political crisis, she promulgated a citizenship amendment ordinance at Oli’s behest, only to see the Supreme Court stay its implementation as “colourable legislation” bypassing parliament. Oli did so to please his coalition partners.
The turning point was in Aug 2022, when a gender‑equitable Citizenship Amendment Bill passed both houses. Bhandari vetoed it with fifteen recommendations, but when parliament flared up at the unchanged text, she let it lapse by failing to sign it within the 15‑day constitutional deadline. Deuba was the prime minister. Tens of thousands of children, especially those born to Nepali women and foreign men, remained stateless. Opponents branded the move as a ‘pocket veto’ legally equal to constitutional violation; five top ruling-party officials publicly criticized the move and threatened impeachment.
Bhandari defended her action as maintaining the sanctity of the constitution. Nevertheless, her denial of assent to a democratically passed bill involved her in further charges of abusing presidential discretion for political ends while disguising it with ceremonial facade.
Several additional controversies have marked Bhandari’s presidency, painting a portrait of a head of state who often blurred the line between ceremonial duty and political involvement.
In Oct 2017, when then–Prime Minister Deuba had presented an ordinance on medical education to the House of Representatives, President Bhandari retained it in her custody for nearly three weeks. Her delay had come under widespread public backlash, particularly from civil society and activist Dr Govinda KC. She signed the ordinance only on Nov 10—much beyond executive standards—drawing charges that she had exercised presidential discretion for political reasons.
In Nov 2020, Bhandari once more courted controversy by wading directly into the internal struggle of the then-ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP). She met with factional leaders such as Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Bamdev Gautam, and Oli to attempt to mediate a solution to the party’s internal crisis. This was seen as a grave breach of presidential impartiality by analysts, some of whom stated that she behaved more like a political patron than as a constitutional head of state.
In Dec 2020, the Oli Cabinet pushed through an ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act to allow council decisions with minimal quorum. President Bhandari swiftly approved it, enabling controversial appointments across constitutional bodies bypassing parliamentary hearings. Critics saw this as unchecked rubber-stamping of executive excess.
On 21 Sept 2022, Bhandari made a pre-recorded address to a Chinese-funded Global Security Initiative forum in Beijing in contravention of reportedly advised by Deuba government’s Foreign Ministry. Her presence was strongly condemned for being a breach of diplomatic etiquette and risking Nepal’s tenuous foreign policy balance.
Again in Oct 2022, Deuba was the prime minister and President Bhandari refused to promulgate a government ordinance presented to amend several laws—including the Money Laundering Prevention Act and Foreign Investment Act—that were necessary for Nepal’s compliance with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) deadlines. Her inaction was condemned for suppressing vital anti–money laundering reforms and for exacerbating Nepal’s slowing efforts to deliver international obligations. She is also blamed by critics for Nepal’s Feb 2025 gray‑listing, which affected foreign investment and bank costs.
Finally, in March 2023, she was faulted for allegedly renaming the formal Twitter identity of the President’s Office (@PresidentofNP) to her name (@BidyaDBhandari), stripping it of official verification. The move raised public and institutional ire, as her replacement was barred from occupying the verified cyberspace, which was condemned as misuse of official facilities for individual purposes.
Every episode has eroded the myth of politically neutral presidency and strengthened the image of Bhandari as a partisan official instead of a fair-minded umpire above factional turmoil. The same controversies that plagued her government now fuel suspicions regarding the true motives for her actions. In UML ranks, there is skepticism as to whether her ascent predicts yet another cycle of internal civil strife.
Bhandari’s eight‑year tenure was marked by contradictions: sworn to uphold Nepal’s constitution, yet accused of stretching its limits; cast as the ultimate ceremonial figure, yet wielding real—and often decisive—discretion. Her partnership with Oli brought the promise of stable governance but delivered repeated constitutional crises. Now, as she lays claim to lead the very party she served from the ceremonial chair earlier, Bhandari has to face the record of those standoffs: the dead ordinances, the contested oaths, the dissolutions abhorred by the judiciary, and the citizenship reforms balancing.
