By Our Reporter
The Supreme Court has put two controversial House rules on hold, and the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party should take the message seriously. The order is temporary. The judges have yet to decide whether the rules are unconstitutional. But their concern is clear: a large majority in the House of Representatives cannot use its own rules to change how the Constitution is amended. The court’s interim order keeps both provisions in abeyance while the case proceeds.
Rule 140(11) would let the Speaker certify a constitutional amendment if votes in favour across both houses added up to two thirds of their combined membership. Under the established procedure, an amendment needs a two thirds majority in each house separately. That distinction matters to the RSP. It holds nearly two thirds of the seats in the lower house, but none in the National Assembly. Counting the votes together could allow support in the lower house to make up for a shortfall in the upper one. The disputed rule would give the RSP a route to amendment that the existing procedure does not.
Rule 259 raises a different concern. It declares that the House rules apply as a special federal law despite provisions in existing laws. A parliamentary chamber needs rules to run its meetings and committees. Yet rules made by one chamber cannot acquire the authority of legislation passed through the constitutional process. Nor should they create a broad shield for lawmakers from laws that apply to everyone else. The court found an apparent conflict serious enough to suspend this provision too. That is a warning about the limits of parliamentary power, not a final ruling on what Rule 259 would do.
The RSP pushed the rules through on May 31 despite fierce opposition and disorder in the chamber. It may argue that voters gave it a mandate to pursue change. They did. But a mandate gives a government the chance to make its case, win the votes it needs and follow the law. It does not give one chamber the power to reduce the role of the other by rewriting its own procedures.
Nepal has seen how quickly a commanding majority can turn into a belief that checks are needless obstacles. KP Sharma Oli’s two attempts to dissolve the House remain a reminder of the cost of stretching constitutional power. The RSP came to office promising a break from that style of politics. It should be especially careful when its own decisions begin to resemble it.
The court has given the party a chance to step back before the final judgment. It should open a serious debate in the House and revise the disputed rules through a process that respects the National Assembly and the Constitution. If the RSP wants to amend the Constitution, it must persuade enough lawmakers in both chambers. That may take longer. For a change to the country’s founding rules, it should.
Login to add a comment