Nepal has once again plunged into a deep constitutional crisis. What began as peaceful protests by Generation Z, initially demanding the lifting of the social media ban and an end to entrenched corruption, has snowballed into a political upheaval that led to the fall of the powerful Nepali Congress–CPN-UML coalition government, and dissolution of the Parliament, creating a legislative vacuum. Nepal had faced the similar crisis in 2012 when the first Constituent Assembly (CA) was dissolved without drafting the new constitution.
On September 9, when the protests turned violent—targeting state institutions such as the executive, legislature, and judiciary—Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli stepped down in an effort to calm tensions. However, his resignation failed to pacify the growing unrest. In response, the Nepal Army (NA), albeit a bit late, stepped in to restore law and order across the country. NA not only restored relative calm but also strategically engaged with both protestors to keep the street peaceful. After stabilizing the situation, the NA handed over political responsibility to President Ram Chandra Poudel. Following intensive negotiations with protestors, political parties, and constitutional experts, President Ram Chandra Poudel appointed former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as prime minister—a decision favored by a section of the protestors.
However, this move has raised serious constitutional debates. Karki is not a sitting member of Parliament, and the 2015 constitution lacks any provision for appointing a non-parliamentarian as Prime Minister. The presidential statement justifying her appointment does not cite any specific constitutional clause. Instead, it claims that the President exercised his inherent constitutional authority as the guardian of the constitution in an "abnormal and difficult" situation, and that the appointment was made with the consent of outgoing Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Further controversy erupted when, based on Karki’s recommendation, the President dissolved Parliament and announced general elections for March 5, 2026. While this move has temporarily filled the executive vacuum, it has opened the door to a major constitutional showdown likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court. Political parties mainly Nepali Congress had advised amending the constitution to pave the way for Karki’s appointment as prime minister but those suggestions were ultimately ignored.
Although there were fears that the constitution might be dismantled under pressure from the streets, it has—at least for now—survived, and parties are thankful to the president. Yet, the path forward remains fraught. The Nepal Bar Association has condemned the dissolution of Parliament as unconstitutional, arguing that it violates past Supreme Court rulings and undermines democratic principles. It warned that such moves could erode public trust in the constitution and democratic institutions. Notably, the oath-taking ceremony of the new Prime Minister was marked by the absence of key figures such as the Speakers of both houses and heads of constitutional bodies, signaling a growing institutional disconnect.
A key challenge for the Karki-led government is whether it can successfully conduct elections within six months, as mandated by the President. Achieving this will require navigating the conflicting interests of political parties and street protestors. Failure to hold timely elections could plunge the country into yet another constitutional crisis, especially since there will be no legislature in place to resolve it. Historically, the international community has played a key role in supporting Nepal’s elections, constitution drafting, and democratic consolidation.
But today, the global geopolitical environment has changed. Even democratic countries appear more concerned with strategic interests than championing democracy and human rights. International actors now prefer to maintain working relationships with whoever holds power, regardless of their democratic credentials. Domestically, public trust in political parties has eroded due to years of perceived corruption, incompetence, and anti-democratic tendencies. Meanwhile, a growing internal movement is openly calling for the dismantling of the 2015 constitution, and with it, the abolition of federalism, secularism, and the broader democratic framework.
In such a volatile scenario, the media has a vital role to play in safeguarding democracy. Unfortunately, over the past year, media freedom has come under systematic attack. During the protests, prominent media houses such as Annapurna Media Network and Kantipur Media Group were targeted, with their offices torched during pro-monarchy demonstrations in May. These attacks inflicted significant material damage and deep psychological trauma on journalists. Yet, the international community has remained largely silent on these violations of press freedom. In addition to physical attacks, journalists face increasing online and offline threats, further shrinking Nepal’s civic space. It remains uncertain whether the new government will initiate investigations into these incidents, or whether national and international stakeholders will take meaningful action.
In conclusion, Nepal’s hard-won constitution—which institutionalized democracy, federalism, secularism, and minority rights—is now under serious threat. The immediate priority for all political parties, civil society, and democratic stakeholders should be to support the current government in conducting free and fair elections within the next six months. However, they must also maintain constant vigilance to ensure the government does not veer toward unconstitutional or autocratic practices.
Recent developments suggest that the Nepal Army, while active in stabilizing the situation, is not interested in staging a coup and appears to be respecting constitutional values. Similarly, President Poudel has, despite making compromises, largely positioned himself as a defender of democracy and constitutional order. The coming months will be decisive. The success of the new government depends on PM Kari’s ability to adopt a broader and more inclusive approach to national issues. As a former chief justice, there are high expectations that Karki will uphold the constitution and remain uncompromising in her commitment to democracy.
