Kathmandu, Oct 10: Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government has increasingly relied on ordinances to change laws during its first six months, raising questions over why a government with a clear parliamentary majority is bypassing the regular legislative process.
Since taking office on March 27, the government has issued eight ordinances, while the Cabinet has approved three more related to land, forests and disaster management.
Legal experts say issuing ordinances is constitutional but question whether the government has demonstrated the urgency required to use them instead of introducing bills in Parliament.
Article 114 of the Constitution allows the president, on the Cabinet’s recommendation, to issue ordinances when both houses of Parliament are not in session, and immediate action is necessary. Ordinances have the force of law but must later be presented to Parliament.
The controversy stems partly from the government’s handling of Parliament. The first parliamentary session began just four days after Shah took office but ended after only nine days, with the House of Representatives holding six meetings.
Instead of calling another session and introducing legislation, the government began issuing ordinances weeks later.
Seven ordinances were issued within four days from April 30 to May 3. They amended laws governing cooperatives, public procurement, money laundering, universities, health science academies and the removal of public officials, among other areas.
The government also moved to amend the Constitutional Council Act through an ordinance, but the president returned it for reconsideration.
Senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai said ordinances are temporary constitutional instruments designed to address urgent legal needs when Parliament is not sitting, not substitutes for Parliament.
He argued that issues such as public procurement, universities, money laundering and constitutional bodies involve long-term institutional policies that should undergo parliamentary debate, committee scrutiny and stakeholder consultation.
Government supporters reject the criticism. Advocate Bheshraj Pokharel said existing laws had slowed decision-making and that ordinances were necessary to meet immediate needs and speed up government action.
Critics, however, say the government’s parliamentary majority makes its reliance on ordinances harder to justify. They argue that ordinary bills could be passed without requiring opposition support.
Legal experts say the central question is therefore not whether the government has the constitutional authority to issue ordinances, but whether its repeated use of that authority is justified when Parliament remains available to make laws.
People’s News Monitoring Service
Login to add a comment