Submit your Article

It has been more than six months since Nepal’s two major political parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML, pledged to make amendments to the 2015 constitution. However, despite their promises, tangible progress remains elusive. A few weeks ago, they announced plans to form a two-party mechanism to address constitutional amendment issues. Yet, this initiative appears stalled, with little to no significant development.

Statements from Prime Minister and CPN-UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli suggest that a constitutional amendment is not on the immediate horizon. In fact, it may not occur until after the 2027 national elections. Without giving away the specifics, Oli indicated that any potential amendment might only take place in 2030. Regarding the flaws in the constitution, he remarked, “There are some flaws in the constitution which need to be rectified, but it will take place only in 2030 because now we do not have the two-thirds majority required for it.”

The NC has remained notably silent about its position on constitutional amendments. There have been no substantial deliberations within the party, and it is unclear if there is any agreement between the NC and UML on key issues. Both parties appear to share an interest in reforming the current electoral system to ensure political stability, but dissenting voices from Madhesi and Janajati leaders within their ranks could complicate such efforts.

If the two major parties fail to take the initiative, constitutional amendments are unlikely to materialize. When the NC and UML announced their willingness to amend the constitution while forming the government in July last year, it prompted other parties to clarify their positions. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which did not exist when the constitution was promulgated in 2015, has established a task force led by Chief Whip Santosh Pariyar to determine the party’s stance on constitutional issues. The RSP’s position on governance, federalism, and the electoral system remains ambiguous. The party’s decision not to field candidates for provincial assemblies in 2022 sparked speculation that it might oppose the federal structure. However, leaders like Pariyar have expressed support for federalism and related agendas.

Meanwhile, Madhes-based parties have begun consolidating their positions on constitutional amendments. These parties are working towards forming a loose alliance to present a unified stance. The first amendment to the constitution in 2016 addressed some of their demands, bringing an end to the Madhes Movement and lifting a four-month-long blockade imposed by India. However, the Madhes-based parties still advocate for further changes to fully address their grievances.

Constitutional amendment was also a key topic of discussion at the recently concluded Central Committee meeting of CPN (Maoist Center), the main opposition. The party has outlined three primary amendments: the introduction of a directly elected president, the adoption of a fully proportional electoral system, and ensuring 50 percent representation for women in state organs. Maoist Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal has championed these radical reforms, which could reshape Nepal’s political landscape if implemented.

The fifth-largest party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), has also initiated internal discussions on constitutional amendments. The RPP’s agenda includes abolishing federalism, reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state, and reviving the monarchy. These proposals stand in stark contrast to the positions of most other parties and are unlikely to gain widespread support.

Despite these activities among smaller parties, the NC and UML’s lack of substantive discussion on constitutional amendments is striking. For instance, during a recent UML Central Committee meeting, there was no mention of the specific changes the party seeks to introduce. According to UML leaders, the party’s strategy is to prioritize constitutional amendments only after securing a majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2015 constitution is widely regarded as a product of compromise among four major political forces: the NC, UML, Maoists, and Madhes-based parties. While this consensus allowed for the constitution’s promulgation, it has also resulted in ambiguities and areas of contention that require resolution. The UML’s current stance appears to favor amendments tailored to its terms, further delaying the process due to the lack of cross-party consensus.

As Nepal approaches the 10th anniversary of the 2015 constitution, there has been no expert-led review of its implementation. A senior UML leader has emphasized that the government’s priority is to evaluate the constitution’s effectiveness before deciding on amendments. This cautious approach reflects broader hesitations within the NC, where internal dynamics and divergent views prevent the party from supporting UML’s amendment proposals wholeheartedly.

The road to constitutional amendment is fraught with challenges. Beyond the lack of political will among major parties, there are ideological divides that hinder consensus. For instance, the UML’s preference for amendments that align with its agenda clashes with the more inclusive demands of Madhes-based parties and Janajati leaders. Similarly, the Maoist party’s call for radical reforms faces resistance from parties advocating for minimal changes.

Furthermore, the failure to address constitutional issues risks deepening public disillusionment with Nepal’s political leadership. Many citizens view the 2015 constitution as a landmark achievement that needs refinement to better serve the nation’s evolving needs. The lack of progress undermines confidence in the political process and raises questions about the commitment of major parties to democratic principles and governance.

To move forward, Nepal’s political leadership must prioritize dialogue and consensus-building. A comprehensive review of the constitution’s implementation, involving legal experts, civil society, and diverse political voices, could provide a roadmap for amendments that address the nation’s pressing challenges. 

A Constitution is a living document, it is a document of compromise that is not immune from the winds of change that blow so very often, especially on this part of the globe. As times change, the makers of a constitution or their successors have to make timely changes in it without compromising on its basic tenets.  

Nepal’s newest charter is not—and cannot be—an exception. 

Nine years have passed since the Constituent Assembly, in its second term, promulgated the constitution of a federal, secular and democratic Nepal, in a massive departure from the unitary system, amid a rough weather marked by protests from sections of the national population and displeasure from the next-door neighbor. Looking back, the system stood pretty shakily on twin pillars of multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy on a seismic fault-zone, thanks to endemic corruption, a war, dynastic rules both of the royals and champions of democracy, rising public discontent and desires for change. 

Almost a decade after the promulgation of the charter that aimed to institutionalize democracy and republicanism by bringing the government at the doorsteps of the people living in far-flung areas in particular, not much has changed. Federalism, which was supposed to take the government to the doorsteps, is proving to be a costly affair, with increasing complaints from the people that all they have got at the provinces are Singhadurbars (Lion Palaces), which are quite costly to keep as they have to foot the cost of their operation. A frequently-heard public complaint is that the rulers have let the lions out among hapless sections of the society instead of extending to them the benevolent hand of the state.

There’s also a feeling among the public that select political leaders of the country can get away with anything, including policy-level corruption, as they are beyond the long arm of the law. 

Rather than decentralizing power, our federal experiment, thus far, has mostly been about managing plum jobs at the provinces for cadres of different political parties.

Moreover, whenever there’s a change of guard at the center, provincial governments also topple,  deepening a chronic political instability and disenchanting the people further and further.

These factors are pushing people, youths in particular, to the foreign shores—for jobs, for an education and even for permanent settlement. 

This does not bode well for a polity. 

The parties represented in the Parliament, including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, the two largest parties, should wake up and act. Amending the constitution may be necessary—by taking the entire country into confidence through long and engaging discussions with every section of the society on every topic—but it is equally necessary for Nepal’s political leaders to mend ways.  

President Ram Chandra Paudel has said that the Constitution of Nepal has united ethnically, religiously, culturally and geographically diverse Nepali society into a thread of broader national unity by ending all sorts of discrimination and oppression imposed by the centralized and unitary form of governance.

In a message of best wishes today on the occasion of Constitution Day and National Day 2081 BS, the President has expressed confidence that the Constitution Day would make the political parties, leadership, government and the entire state regime more responsible for making it more democratic, just and result-oriented.

President Paudel has expected that this day would inspire all to unite to meet the aspirations of people for lasting peace, good-governance, development and prosperity through the federal democratic republican system.

In his message, the President has praised the contributions of political activists, the general public and the leaders of the political parties for their participation and leadership role in the political movements and tough struggles that happened at different times for the establishment of the republic. 

Likewise, the President has expressed condolence to all known and unknown martyrs for their martyrdom during different movements waged for the cause of the republican system.

CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman and former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has said that the party is not against the Constitution amendment.

Talking to the media at Biratnagar airport today, the leader said, "However any attempts to shrink the rights of the citizens and dismiss the achievements in the name of the Constitution amendment shall not be tolerable for the CPN (Maoist Center)."

He announced that it would not be accepted by the party if any efforts were made to withdraw the provision of proportional representation and inclusion aiming to uplift the suppressed, marginalized and disadvantaged communities. 

The Maoist 'people's war' led to the establishment of the rights of Madhesi, Dalits, Muslims, indigenous and nationalities, he added.

The erstwhile Prime Minister claimed that the party had to exit from power as it initiated a process to take action against corruption and middle persons. "Now, the party has an opportunity to expand its organization, strengthen and rebuild itself."

As the leader of the major opposition, he warned the government not to perform against the interests of the nation and the citizens.

The constitution-making process is a crucial opportunity to restructure the governance system. It’s been nearly a decade since the promulgation of Nepal’s Constitution, and throughout this exercise, the three branches of government— executive, legislative and judiciary—have faced controversy and criticism. Future constitutional practice in Nepal will likely be more complex and demanding as it appears that the judiciary, which is required by the constitution to act in accordance with the constitution by judicially reviewing the unlawful and unconstitutional acts committed by other state organs, is losing its capacity to carry out its duties.

It is undeniable that the judiciary will play a significant role in strengthening, maturing, and advancing the constitutional jurisprudence and constitution through development, as our constitution, which was enacted with the rule of law and constitutional supremacy, tries to amend the governance system and constitutional practice through mainstream consensus while remain within the limits of the constitution.

The constitution is said to be a reflection of the society’s consciousness. The necessity of developing, reforming, and amending the constitution becomes apparent when there is a shift in societal consciousness. Constitutional reforms are also necessary to end the flaws or skewed practices observed during the constitutional practice. Only issues concerning the judiciary or the constitution have been addressed in this article.

Structural reform matters 

The preamble of the Constitution of Nepal envisions an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, while Article 126 ensures that Nepal’s justice-related rights will be exercised only by courts and judicial bodies in accordance with the legitimate principles of the Constitution, law, and justice. Courts and judicial bodies are the only entities that can exercise justice-related rights.

The way for maintaining the judiciary’s independence and competence is that, because the judiciary has the right to judicial review of executive and legislative acts, it is recognized that it should remain independent and competent under all circumstances. Because the executive and legislature primarily challenge the judiciary’s independence, the standards of independence should be determined by the constitution itself, and our constitution has adopted the necessary constitutional provisions.

Constitutional Council

The Constitutional Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, advises appointments for the Chief Justice and other constitutional organs. This sacred objective has been nearly destroyed by constitutional practice so far, raising issues about the fundamental concept of an independent judiciary, and there is an urgent need for reassessment. The following are the grounds for the necessity to change the current structure of the Constitutional Council:

It has been demonstrated in practice that when the court makes judgments alongside the government and the legislative, it is impossible to achieve the constitutional goal of an independent, competent, and effective judiciary. The judiciary’s ability to review decisions made by other branches of government has become apparent.

The principle of a transparent and independent trial, as well as natural justice, have been violated because a bench, including the Chief Justice, is required to evaluate the legitimacy of the decision and the judicial procedure. 

On the other hand, due to Chief Justices’ unwillingness to face such issues or their desire to step down, or for various concealed factors, such disagreements could not be settled for a long time, raising concerns about the judiciary’s efficiency.

It has been revealed that the Chief Justice’s position in the Constitutional Council forces the Executive and Legislative branches, as well as the Judiciary, to exercise undue influence or, in some instances, make transactions with those organs, agencies or persons.

The judiciary, like other organs of the state, will be discredited. If this constitutional clause is not addressed promptly, public trust in the court will decline further, and democracy will undoubtedly suffer. As a result, it appears unavoidable that the Constitution be altered to separate the Chief Justice from the Constitutional Council.

Judicial Council

It is necessary to modify the Judicial Council's current structure as well because it is not capable of fulfilling its constitutional mandate, which calls for it to recommend judges for appointment to all levels of government and to take disciplinary action against judges of courts other than the Supreme Court. The reasons behind this can be stated as follows:

• The recommendation process for the appointment of judges is non-transparent, the merit system cannot be adopted, the judicial council is influenced by political pressure, complaints against judges are not processed on time, all four areas of the appointment of judges frequently express dissatisfaction with the appointment, and the judicial council's decisions and actions are not implemented. Dissatisfactions are expressed during the appointment, claiming that relatives, nepotism, favors, and temptations have usurped their position.
• This framework appears to be failing to meet constitutional objectives because standards are sometimes set in the appointment of judges, sometimes they are postponed, and rules are changed based on the individual.
• The Judicial Council's performance is considered low because it is not accountable to Parliament, the Judiciary, or the Constitution. As a result, the constitution must be reviewed by changing the structure of the judicial council and appointing a majority of judicial leadership, recommending the appointment of judges from the collegium system in which Supreme Court judges participate, as is the case in India, or by exploring alternative approaches.

Parliament hearing

Parliamentary hearings on the proceedings of the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges have had a negative impact on the notion and practice of an independent judiciary, as well as jurisdiction. 

The parliamentary hearing is a political process that cannot be completed without the involvement of the political level. As political involvement must be demonstrated, those who are recommended to pass the parliamentary hearing stage expect the backing of the political sector, and the political sector has different expectations of the recommended individual. 

The course of parliamentary hearings appears to be in threat of being a negotiation point between the political and judicial branches. This has eroded the core notion of an independent judiciary. 

Thus, in the case of the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges, it is appropriate to review the current constitutional provision regarding parliamentary hearings and implement the public hearing method process recommended by the judicial council that makes the appointment recommendation. 

High Court

According to the phrases and terms used in Articles 133 and 144 of the Constitution of Nepal, the High Court, in addition to determining the validity of laws, has the same authority to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction as the Supreme Court. However, even now, it appears that the high courts are unable to completely exercise their jurisdiction.

In some circumstances, the High Court’s appear to be simple continuations of the earlier Appellate Courts. The appointment of judges, qualifications, as well as the study and skill of legal practitioners, all contribute to this.

But basically, from the standpoint of expanding extraordinary jurisdiction to the High Court like the Supreme Court, it has become unavoidable to review the constitution and provide the High Court with the power.  

This reduces the Supreme Court's workload while simultaneously simplifying and speeding up the administration of justice. Likewise, by establishing the High Courts as Supreme Courts or Courts of Record, such as the High Courts of India or other federal countries, it should be ensured that the judicial principles advanced by the High Courts are binding on the District Courts or other judicial bodies subordinate to them. 

Impeachment process

The Constitution’s Article 101(2) states that the House of Representatives may impeach the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other judges with a two-thirds vote. However, in certain instances, this power has been misused and the House has been unable to demonstrate its impartiality in other situations.

In India, six judges, including the Chief Justice, have faced impeachment, but to this day, they have not been impeached. According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India, if the Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court is impeached by a two-thirds majority of both the Federal Houses on the grounds of misconduct and incompetence, the judges of the Supreme Court shall not be dismissed from office except by the President.

On the other hand, it has become necessary to review the current constitutional provisions and create a constitutional arrangement to swiftly resolve the related provisions enrolled against the Chief Justice and judges, as the House of Representatives' impeachment proposal has been delayed for a long time due to political wrangling.

In conclusion, the judiciary’s structural reform is now essential. The aforementioned issues, as well as any other subjects, can be the focus of structural reforms.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has said that the constitution can be amended based on the experience of its implementation so far and as per people's aspirations and needs of the nation. And it will be carried out with consent of the political parties.

Responding to queries of MPs in today's meeting of the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Oli mentioned that positive signs have started to appear in the economy within a short period of formation of the government. Revenue mobilization and capital expenditure has increased in the month of Shrawan of the current financial year compared to last year.

Stating that there has been a significant improvement in the capital market, the Prime Minister said that there is enthusiasm along with the morale to invest in the private sector.

He said that the positive signs were seen due to the policy taken by the government to fulfill the stated objectives of the nation.

"Big parties CPN-UML and Nepali Congress have come together to take the country towards the path of political stability, corruption control, good governance, economic development, social justice and prosperity," Prime Minister Oli said.

 He said that the policy of zero tolerance towards corruption is a commitment to complete the task of controlling corruption by adopting the legal process of control and prevention. "We are clear that corruption control should not only be a matter of rhetoric, it should be based on judicial investigation and result-oriented", Oli said.

On June 7, the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress reached a seven-point consensus to form a coalition government. Days later, KP Sharma Oli cited these points from the rostrum of the Federal Parliament. While most of the agreement focuses on equitable power-sharing, it also solidifies that parties with different political ideologies will govern together for the foreseeable future. Notably, the second point of the agreement emphasizes that the national consensus government will prioritize amending the Constitution and enacting laws to ensure political stability, rather than merely reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and complexities that have emerged since its enactment.

Given Madhes' significant political influence from the first Constituent Assembly until the Constitution's promulgation, it is crucial to gauge the political sentiments of the region. Politically, some Madhes-centric parties have already backed the Congress-UML coalition, some have stakes in the federal government, one party leads the Madhes Province, and others are still vying for federal government participation. This article aims to address two key questions: How will the Madhes Province handle the constitutional amendment issue presented by the two parties? And what kind of constitutional amendments does Madhes seek?

Madhes’ cautious approach

To understand the political pulse of Madhes Province, I spoke with Dr Vijay Singh, Vice-president of the Tarai Madhes Democratic Party and a former member of the Constituent Assembly. When asked about his party’s stance on the UML-Congress coalition’s agreement to amend the Constitution, Dr Singh welcomed the initiative but stressed the need for a thorough review of what needs to be amended. He criticized the leaders of major parties who blame the mixed electoral system for the existing electoral issues, arguing that the current system has no inherent flaws. Dr Singh pointed out that since 1991, all elections before the Constituent Assembly used the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method, which led to imbalanced, unstable, and weak government structures, underrepresentation of marginalized communities, and greater dominance of the ‘Khas-Arya’ community. In contrast, proportional representation ensures that diverse societal groups, including marginalized communities, are adequately represented.

Dr Singh also highlighted an inconsistency in the Constitution: the upper house of parliament allows for 59 members, with three appointed by the cabinet in addition to an equal number of MPs elected by each province. This setup does not align with the principles of inclusivity, as provinces with vastly different populations elect the same number of representatives. He suggested that the Indian model, where each state is guaranteed one seat in the upper house and the remaining seats are allocated based on population, could be more appropriate. Additionally, Dr. Singh called for a review of the gerrymandered electoral constituencies in the southern plains, which have been manipulated by major political parties.

Ram Saroj Yadav, a Constituent Assembly member and Nepali Congress representative in the Provincial Assembly, echoed similar concerns. He and other party members oppose any alterations to the proportional representation provision, which guarantees inclusive representation from the provincial to the federal level. Yadav stressed that Nepal’s diverse society gives regional parties a unique role in the nation, and any attempt to undermine federalism could trigger a major revolt.

Recently, Satish Singh, the Chief Minister of Madhes Province, submitted a 22-point demand to Prime Minister Oli for the development of Madhes. This highlights the province’s lack of sufficient resources and authority for its development. According to Deepak Sah, Vice-president of the Janmat Party, while Janmat supports the current coalition, they will fiercely resist any attempt by the government to backtrack on the achievements enshrined in the Constitution.

Meanwhile, UML and other national party leaders are optimistic about constitutional revisions to promote political stability, though they acknowledge the challenges of fostering development under the current framework. Historically, Nepal’s national parties have struggled to address regional identity issues, and Madhes remains particularly sensitive to any curtailment of regional party rights.

The road ahead

Electorally, the influence of Madhes-centric parties has diminished since 2017. The CPN-UML and Nepali Congress have overtaken the Janata Samajbadi Party and Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, the two major Madhes-based parties, to become the largest and second-largest parties in the province, respectively. This shift reflects growing discontent with political figures and representatives rather than with the system itself. Within Madhes-centric parties, formal and informal debates are ongoing about whether the larger national parties are attempting to sideline smaller, regional parties under the pretext of constitutional revision.

The Constitution of Nepal envisions a framework based on federalism, republicanism, secularism, and inclusivity, with fundamental rights, proportional representation, and inclusivity at its core. While there are voices in Madhes Province arguing against secularism, their political influence is minimal, and Madhes-centric parties, along with other parties, have generally supported secularism.

A constitution’s strength lies in its ability to reflect the values of the people it governs. Madhes has a significant stake in the Constitution of Nepal, having revolted in 2007 after the interim constitution was issued without mentioning federalism—an omission that cost 57 protesters their lives. The devastating 2015 earthquake prompted major political parties to sign a 16-point agreement to promulgate the Constitution, but this agreement was seen by some as a calculated move to undermine federalism. The Supreme Court ultimately mandated the promulgation of a new Constitution, which included provisions for provincial power-sharing and federal boundaries. Advocate Dipendra Jha noted that Nepal’s Constitution was created as a “constitution of winners and losers,” rather than one reflecting everyone’s sentiments.

Now, the same parties that dominated the Constituent Assembly and shaped the Constitution are attempting to amend it. It is crucial to eliminate the mindset of "winners and losers" and address past injustices. For Madhes, the amendment process represents an opportunity to ensure that the Constitution truly reflects the needs and aspirations of all Nepalis.

The author is associated with Peace Development Research Center [PDRC]

Nepal’s Constitution is progressive in many aspects. It mandates proportional and inclusive participation of women, indigenous ethnic groups, Madhesi, Dalits, and marginalized communities in state apparatuses. 

The preamble of the Constitution states, “To build an egalitarian society founded on the proportional inclusive and participatory principles in order to ensure economic equality, prosperity, and social justice, by eliminating discrimination based on class, caste, region, language, religion and gender and all forms of caste-based untouchability.”. 

However, stakeholders say that the lack of effective implementation of the country’s main law is their chief concern. They claim that marginalized classes and communities are still awaiting their adequate involvement in the executive (government), legislature (parliament), and judiciary (courts).

It is said the latest representation of the Dalit community in the government mirrors the implementation status, which is not satisfactory, of the provisions concerning proportional and inclusive representation.

Presently, the Cabinet has the participation of just one Dalit as the minister of state. The situation was the same in the previous government. 

In the current House of Representatives, there are 15 Dalit members towards the proportional representation and one is directly elected, totaling 16 members. This representation makes up just 5.81 percent. In the first election of the House of Representatives held in 2017 following the promulgation of the Constitution, the representation of the Dalit community was 6 percent. 

In the first 2008 Constituent Assembly (CA), the representation of Dalit community was 8.48 percent as they numbered  51, out of 601, and this number dropped to 41 to make up  6.82 percent in the 2013  CA. 

Hiralal Bishwakarma is the first minister to represent the Dalit community. He was appointed Assistant Minister for Education in 1974 and later served as the Minister of State for Education and the Assistant Minister for Supplies. 

The country could get just seven ministers from the Dalit community over a span of three decades. Hiralal Bishwakarma, Prakash Chitrakar, Lal Bahadur Bishwakarma, Hari Shankar Pariyar, Golchhe Sarki, Pratap Ram Lohar, and Man Bahadur Bishwakarma were those serving as either assistant or state minister. There were no full ministers representing the Dalit community till then. 

The interim government led by Girija Prasad Koirala that was formed on 25 April 2006,  following the Jana Andolan-II (People’s Movement-II) in 2006 inducted Khadga Bahadur Bishwakarma as Minister for Women, Children, and Social Welfare, and Chhabilal Bishwakarma as the Minister for Agriculture and Cooperatives. They were the first full ministers from this community in the country’s history.

Subsequently, Chhabilal Bishwakarma, Mahendra Paswan, Khadka Bahadur Bishwakarma, Bishendra Paswan, Daljit Shripaili, Meen Bahadur Bishwakarma, Jagat Bahadur Sunar Bishwakarma, and Maheshwar Jang Gahatraj became ministers. Similarly, after 2006, Naresh Kumar Bishwakarma, Jeet Bahadur Darji (Gautam), Khadga Bahadur Basyal, Kalawati Paswan, Dal Bahadur Sunar, Gopi Achhami, Ramani Ram, Dhanmaya BK, Karn Bahadur BK, Bimala BK, and Asha BK were appointed as state ministers.

This scenario is sufficient to say that the presence of Dalit community in the state has shrunken. Lawmakers from this community said it is disappointing to see a shrinking presence of their community in the state. 

Nepali Congress deputy general secretary Jeevan Pariyar underlined the need to increase the participation of Dalit community, according to their population ratio, in the executive, parliament and judiciary to ensure the effective implementation of the Constitution.  

Article 40 of the Constitution has guaranteed Dalit rights with the promise of their participation in all state bodies based on the principle of proportional inclusion. 

Similarly, the constitution guarantees a special provision as per the law for the empowerment, representation, and participation of the Dalit community in public service and other employment sectors.

Similarly, Article 41 (1) is about the right of the economically, socially, or educationally backward women, Dalit, Indigenous nationalities, Madhesi, Tharu, Muslims, backward classes, minorities, marginalized communities, persons with disabilities, gender and sexual minorities, farmers, laborers, oppressed or citizens of backward regions and indigent Khas Arya to participate in the State bodies on the basis of the principle of proportional inclusion. 

Article 76 (9) of the Constitution is about the constitution of the Council of Ministers comprising a maximum of twenty five Ministers including the Prime Minister, in accordance with the inclusive principle, from amongst the members of the Federal Parliament, but this has not been followed in the practice. 

Full implementation of Constitutional provisions to promote the presence of Dalit community in each organ is awaited, concludes Pariyar. 

Dalit women activists and General Secretary of the Feminist Dalit Organisation (FEDO), Renu Sijapati, sees the need to increase the quota for women from the Dalit community in reservations for women.  She argues that Dalit women should have been allotted a more specific quota in the Civil Service.

The Federal Civil Service Bill which is presently under consideration in the parliament reserves 27 percent quota for Khas Arya women, 25 percent for indigenous ethnic groups, 15 percent for Madhesi, 12 percent for Dalits, 6.6 percent for Tharu, four percent for Muslims, four percent for backward regions, and four percent for persons with disabilities. Previously, there were no separate reservations made for women in the Civil Service.

According to the Public Service Commission, the presence of Dalits in the civil service is 2.3 percent, in the police 9.46 percent, and in the army 8.18 percent.

Standing Committee member of the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center), Parshuram Ramtel, stresses the need to increase the reservation percentage for Dalits, given that the number is still significant compared to the population. 

It is warranted to implement the principle of proportional inclusion as stated in the Constitution at all levels, but the scenario is contravening, he stressed. “Thus, representation for Dalit communities, which have been marginalized economically, socially, culturally, and politically for centuries, must be increased in all the state bodies.”

CPN (Unified Socialist) Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal said that his party has played a crucial role in the country's national politics.

At a program on Sunday organized by the party's Kathmandu Metropolitan Committee, the former Prime Minister said that his party has been taking a coordinated leadership to safeguard democracy, the Constitution and to troubleshoot political crises.

Nepal added that his party would work proactively to further serve the people's interest with more confidence.

Stating that economic prosperity and good-governance are the key needs of the time, Chairman Nepal stressed the need for unity among the left and progressive forces. For this, cooperation and coordination among all parties should be deepened to safeguard the Constitution and republican.

In Nepal, there is a notable pattern: Whenever there is a change in the federal government, the provincial governments often follow suit. Coalition partners tend to mirror this pattern from the central level down to the provinces, contributing to ongoing political instability.

This phenomenon has created a ripple effect, where the lack of a stable federal government leads to instability at the provincial level, affecting governance and development projects across the country.

The root of this instability lies in the difficulty of securing a parliamentary majority for any single party. This fragmented political landscape forces parties into coalition governments, which are often tenuous and prone to collapse.

Federalism, rather than facilitating development and revenue generation, has become a costly endeavor, exacerbated by frequent political shifts. The promise of federalism to bring governance closer to the people and spur localized development has been overshadowed by these political uncertainties.

This situation underscores the urgency of finding a viable solution.

Some leaders believe that amending the constitution could address these challenges and provide a path forward. A more stable and inclusive political framework could help ensure that the benefits of federalism are realized without the current drawbacks of instability and inefficiency.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has already presented a seven-point agreement signed between the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML during a parliamentary session. The agreement, which led to the formation of the new government, was signed by PM Oli and NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba. The second point of the agreement addresses constitutional review and amendments, stating that the new government will assess the constitution’s performance, address its weaknesses, and make necessary amendments for political stability.

PM Oli has been actively advocating for this agenda. In a recent meeting with the delegation of the Nepal Bar Association, he stated that amending the constitution is not a regressive move. He urged them to trust the people’s mandate and reminded them that the constitution includes a provision for amendment if two-thirds of the parliamentarians support it. He questioned how they could view constitutional amendments as a threat to democracy, emphasizing that such changes are a natural part of a dynamic and responsive governance system.

It is said that to amend the constitution, the government of Pushpa Kamal Dahal was ousted, and the two largest parties in the parliament have joined forces. The UML and NC are reportedly seeking amendments in the electoral system and equation, the process and pattern of choosing people’s representatives, and a reevaluation of the inclusion system. These proposed changes aim to create a more equitable and efficient political process that can stop political instability.

Those leaders advocating for these changes must invite all political parties for open discussions and hold a series of roundtable meetings to reach a political consensus. Constitutional amendment is a regular process globally, and it can be achieved in Nepal as well. I too believe it has become necessary to amend the constitution. But it cannot be done solely based on the decisions of two leaders.

Whether it’s small parties, big parties, national parties, regional parties, or any agenda-based parties, each one should be heard and be part of the political consensus. Whether it be the party of Narayan Man Bijukchhe or Chitra Bahadur KC or Rajendra Lingden or Upendra Yadav or CK Raut, or even those outside the parliament—everyone must be included. This inclusivity is crucial to ensure that the amendments reflect a broad spectrum of interests and are sustainable.

To facilitate this, a Constitution Amendment Recommendation Commission should be formed to prepare a draft based on political consensus. The commission should be led by a person recognized by Nepal’s political movements, an expert on law and constitution, and accepted by all—such as former Chief Justice Gopal Parajuli. Such a commission would bring credibility and expertise to the process, helping to navigate the complex legal and political landscape.

We should also listen to our neighbors, but ultimately, we must do what our country and citizens need. While external perspectives can provide valuable insights, the primary focus should be on addressing the specific needs and aspirations of the Nepalis. Amendments or decisions made without consensus or by excluding any parties will not provide stability or be long-lasting.

Moreover, constitutional amendments can lead to anarchy if all recommendations are not included. This potential for discord highlights the importance of a comprehensive and inclusive approach. To minimize or avoid these challenges, political consensus is a must. Only through collaborative effort and mutual respect can Nepal achieve a stable and prosperous future.

The author, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

Prime Minister and CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli has said that an amendment to the Constitution has been realized to promote progression and prosperity in the country.

He said the existing political equation involving two major political parties: the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML is expected to proceed with the constitution's amendment in the pursuit of progression and prosperity.

In his address to a party program at Chyasal today, he argued that it is a false accusation to say that major parties are seeking to amend the Constitution for regression. "The Constitution is an amendable document as per the needs of the country and the people."   At the program held at the party's central office, the party vice chair and central members nominated by the party were sworn in.

He added that the need to amend the country's main law has been realized to strengthen democracy, increase its gravity and acceptability, explore additional bases for development and prosperity, and get connected to the citizens. "The Constitution is not unamendable."

The leader further stressed that politics be practiced for clean competition and the service of citizens.  

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli said that the Constitution amendment is the need of the hour.

Responding to the queries of lawmakers in the Parliament on Monday, he said that the Constitution amendment is not a bid to please anyone.

Prime Minister Oli expressed his commitment that the Constitution will be amended by holding discussions with all the political parties.

CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli has said that the Constitution has to be amended as per the need in course of its implementation.

He said that the party discussed this matter with the Nepali Congress, too, but no agreement has been made between the parties to amend the Constitution specifying the article(s) and the issues to be revised. 

Speaking at the party Secretariat meeting today, the UML Chair ruled out the agreement between the two parties to form a commission to proceed ahead with the Constitution amendment.

He said that the UML-NC political equation is for promoting political stability and development.

The UML Chair expressed his concerns over the spread of 'propaganda' that the UML and NC are attempting to harm the Constitution and the constitutional system.  According to him, this is just a rumor.

Chair Oli contended that the two parties had to come together against the 'tendency' to sideline the interests of the citizens, and development needs of the country by indulging in instability and personal benefits.

He added that the Constitution is a dynamic document, a guideline to the society, and thus it should be amended as per the need of the time. The matter will be discussed in detail with the Nepali Congress.

No deal to share ministries

Oli said the party has not reached a deal with the NC regarding the sharing of ministries in a government to be formed ahead. However, there is an agreement on a policy of providing space for all parties in the government.

He also stressed on increasing the country's productivity with a focus on entrepreneurship, agro-based industries, entrepreneurship and modernization of agriculture.

Rule of law is a basic tenet of democracy. If a nation has a robust rule of law, it will essentially have a strong and durable democracy. But what is the rule of law and how can it be meaningful? The first element of rule of law deals with the process of lawmaking—which ought to be transparent and participatory. According to the Constitution of Nepal 2015, all three tiers of the state—the federal, province and the local level—are entitled to make their own laws within their constitutionally and legally-defined limits. 

Presently, there are 334 members in the two Houses of the Federal Parliament; 550 members in assemblies of seven provinces; and over 20,000 elected representatives in legislative bodies of 753 local levels in the country. All of them are called lawmakers. 

With the promulgation of a new constitution in 2015 that transformed the country from unitary Hindu monarchy into a federal secular republic, there is a huge need to frame hundreds of laws to replace the old system. Despite the completion of two rounds of general, provincial and local elections, the task of lawmaking is yet to complete. Numerous essential laws on federal governance, police system in provinces, civil service system in provinces, education, health have not been formulated yet. 

From federal to province to local level, each tier has faced unique challenges in lawmaking. Take for instance the recently concluded session of the federal parliament—the MPs themselves have lamented that only one single law was passed during the entire session spanning months. 

In practice, Nepal also faces a unique problem of lawmaking being dominated by a handful of senior leaders of major parties. The MPs or even committees always look up to them to pass any law. They also block any legislation that is against their vested interests. Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and president of the Nepali Congress rarely take part in committee discussions or House meetings. They do not even attend the House for more than 10 days in the entire session. 

Provincial assemblies have always complained that they lack facilitating federal laws that can allow them to frame their provincial laws in areas like provincial civil service, which are of urgent necessity. Local levels have been found to engage in lawmaking that is either outright copying of model laws distributed by the federal government—without incorporation of local context and circumstances—or haphazard drafting without concerns for due process and content. Many laws originating in provincial assemblies and local level have also been challenged for violating the limits and jurisdictions as laid down by the Schedules of the Constitution. 

That apart, the prevalent practice is to enact laws without peoples’ participation. Government bodies draft a law to their liking and push it through the parliament with minimal involvement of stakeholders. As such, they are not structured in a way that people can comprehend them. They usually fail to reflect the peoples’ aspirations and expectations. 

The second element of the robust rule of law is concerned with the state of implementation of laws. People must know about the laws of the land and abide by them, but there is no systematic procedure to sensitize the people about the laws and provisions introduced. This is the first barrier to the implementation of the laws. 

In fact, even the lawmakers do not know what they have enacted into laws, though they expect everyone to abide by the laws. Clearly, the laws do not get implemented automatically. Processes, programs, resources, management and a favorable environment are required for their implementation. 

Capacities, willingness, monitoring and enforcement are all necessary to make that happen. Most importantly, there has to be a realization of how much ownership is felt by the stakeholders, including those who are supposed to abide by them. 

Some of the critical issues in any rule of law system are to find out whether the people feel benefits of abiding by laws, or whether they feel the burden of abiding by the laws and consider it as imposition of exploitative measures. 

The third and final element of the robust rule of law deals with the institutions that are responsible for upholding laws, and ensuring a system of checks and balances. This involves the geographic distributions of the legal institutions that will have to, first and foremost, ensure the access to law and justice for the ordinary people. 

The people must have easy, economical and intimidation-free access to the institutions of law, including the administration and courts. They must be able to get justice on a predictable timeline. They must also be able to feel that justice is being delivered equally—irrespective of caste, gender, region, economic status or political clout. 

Rule of law institutions must be strong enough to serve their purpose. Matters like trustworthiness in terms of their competence, impartiality, independence, accountability and legitimacy are of utmost importance. This will also determine whether their 

decisions are easily accepted and implemented.  

This will demand a change in all three elements mentioned above. In lawmaking, there is a need to expeditiously formulate essential laws, particularly in areas listed under the concurrent list of the constitutional schedule such as policing, civil service, education and health. 

The Rule of Procedure of the parliament should explicitly state that all MPs must attend at least 50 percent of the House meetings or face disciplinary action. The bills tabled in the parliament must be settled—passed or rejected—within a certain timeline within the session. 

There is a need to ensure participation in lawmaking for public ownership before implementing laws. Town hall meetings or mobile meetings of parliamentary committees at province and local levels can be held with help from civil society organizations to pre-inform the people about the laws. The authorities also need to be accountable to ensure proper implementation of laws. 

In the institutional development aspect, there is a need to first ensure timely and full appointment of judges and court officials. They need to be held accountable to ensure economical, easy, timely and equal access to law and justice for the people. 

The judiciary also must settle cases on stipulated time and if any case is made to linger, there has to be accountability on the part of the courts. For example, a case against appointments in constitutional bodies has been lingering for three years without any justification. 

On the part of the people, they need to be empowered so that they can also rise and demand a robust rule of law in all spheres of their lives. Combined efforts of the executive, the legislature, the judiciary and the people will ensure a robust rule of law that is transparent and participatory.

The author is Executive Director of Nepal Law Society

It is believed that a nation is reborn by adopting a new constitution. And it really became true with the adoption of a new constitution in Nepal when its Constituent Assembly-2 declared it a secular, inclusive, federal, democratic republic on 20 Sept 2015. These are the cardinal features of the constitution. 

Looking back, we find that the three words, ‘democratic federal system’ were incorporated in the Interim Constitution (Article 38) in addition to the terms ‘inclusive and restructured’ through its first amendment on 13 April 2007. It has its basis in the Comprehensive Peace Accord (Clause 8.2) signed on 21 Nov 2006 by the then PM GP Koirala and the Maoist Chief PK  Dahal, which provides for making a ‘a high-level  Recommendation Commission for the Restructuring of the State.’ 

The Maoists were calling for restructuring of the state, however, it was not mentioned in the 12-point agreement signed on 21 Nov 2005, in India by the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists. Perhaps, the most pressing need at that time was to throw out of power the absolute monarchy and other demands were considered secondary.

The entire country celebrated as usual the eighth ‘Constitution Day’ on Sept 20, save the Madhes-based parties, which celebrated the day as a ‘Black Day’ for them, as  more than 100 Madhesi youths had sacrificed their lives for incorporating federalism with one Madhes Pradesh for 20 districts in the Tarai region in the forthcoming constitution. However, the constitution adopted provides for seven provinces out of which a province consisting of only eight districts was carved out of 12 districts. 

The other 12 districts of the Tarai were made part of the five provinces.

It was the thorny issue of federalism that failed Constituent Assembly-1 as consensus was impossible among the parties on the one hand and the strength of the Maoists and the Madhes-based parties in the CA was 

significant which could be ignored, on the other. 

In the CA-2, the number of representatives of both the parties, the Maoists and the Madhesi outfits, was reduced; it was possible for the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML to adopt the constitution with support from some other parties. And realizing the position, the Maoist party also supported the NC and the UML’s proposals and gave up its demand for making identity and resources as the bases 

of federalism.

It was obvious that while adopting the constitution most of the top leaders of all major parties apprehended that federalism would weaken the nation, as it would affect the existing central control over those areas which would be brought under different provinces. 

They also apprehended that since local populations will have control over their areas, they may go for division/bifurcation of the territories. 

Their main concern was regarding their control of the bureaucracy, the permanent government.  If power was divided, their complete say over it would decrease, if not end.

These are the reasons that even after the passing of eight years and three tiers of government duly elected, they are not allowed to function as per powers delivered by the constitution. Important federal laws are not framed as yet to enable them to use their rights to govern the administration and discharge day-to-day duties. 

It seems that many laws, including those related to the civil and police administrations, have not been enacted by the center deliberately to prove that the provincial tier of governance is superfluous and redundant. It is evident from the facts that the frequent transfers and postings of high officials hinder the government’s functioning seriously, as there have been frequent complaints to the center. There are cases filed by the provincial governments in the Supreme Court for the protection of their constitutional rights.

It can be assumed that before taking the decision for carving out seven provinces, they made the local tiers of government more powerful and kept it outside of the overall supervision and control of the provinces to make the second tier weak and worthless. 

The constitution has provided for three tiers of government—central, provincial and local. 

However, the central government has made it a four-tier government by adding one more tier by way of district government, which is controlled by the central government. 

Chief district officers are in charge of peace and security of the districts. It has been made so that the central government will prevail ultimately over provincial and local governments. There are many more obstacles created by the center to prove that federalism is only an unwanted child of the constitution, which is not allowed to grow properly so that its life gets shortened for want of nutritious food to survive by not providing sufficient support.

Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha said the Constitution of Nepal was not only a document of constitutional change but also a long-awaited state restructuring, forms of governance and social and cultural transformation.

Extending best wishes to all Nepali sisters and brothers at home and abroad on the occasion of the Constitution Day, 2080, Chief Justice Shrestha said the Constitution has its objective to assure lasting peace, good governance, development and prosperity.

"Constitutionalism, justice and equality are the spirit of the constitution", reads the message. "The Constitution can be rightly implemented through thinking, perspectives and performances of all state agencies".

The day today was epochal for the people for attaining the Constitution through the Constituent Assembly having their representatives, he said, adding the Nepal Constitution was of special importance from the constitution-making process and its inherent content.