The government of Nepal led by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) faces significant setbacks as four out of eight ordinances issued in late April are expected to lapse after failing to secure parliamentary approval within the 60-day constitutional timeframe. This development underscores the challenges of relying on ordinances without broad legislative support.
President Ramchandra Paudel promulgated the eight ordinances between April 30 and May 5, acting on the government's recommendation. All were presented to both chambers of the federal parliament on May 11 for formal endorsement, as mandated by Article 114 of Nepal’s Constitution. The article requires that ordinances be approved by both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly via replacement bills within 60 days of parliamentary tabling; otherwise, they automatically lose legal force.
With the deadline approaching, four ordinances seen as politically sensitive have yet to move through the parliamentary approval process. These relate to amendments to the Constitutional Council Act, special provisions for the removal of public office holders, university governance reforms, and changes to several other acts. The government has not initiated the introduction of replacement bills for these ordinances amid difficulty in securing the necessary political consensus.
The RSP enjoys a supermajority in the lower house but holds insufficient seats in the National Assembly, necessitating negotiations with opposition parties to pass legislation that requires bicameral approval. As a result, the government prioritized four other ordinances deemed less controversial, enabling their replacement bills—covering amendments to the Cooperative Act, the Public Procurement Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and laws related to health science academies—to progress through the House of Representatives and onto the National Assembly. However, none of these bills has yet completed the full legislative process.
Members of the National Assembly’s lawmaking committee met recently to consider these replacement bills. Prem Dangal, a CPN-UML lawmaker, confirmed that bills related to anti-money laundering and health science academies received endorsement with amendment recommendations. Meanwhile, the Public Procurement and Cooperative bills continue to undergo committee review due to multiple proposed amendments. A subsequent committee meeting was scheduled to seek consensus on these outstanding issues.
Kamala Panta, leader of the Nepali Congress parliamentary party in the National Assembly, expressed optimism that all four bills would be unanimously approved after negotiations and compromises involving government acceptance of certain amendments. Conversely, Dangal cautioned that final endorsement remains uncertain, contingent on the government’s willingness to accept committee-suggested changes.
Even if the committee grants approval, the bills must still be debated and voted on by the full National Assembly before presidential ratification—leaving lawmakers pressed against the constitutional deadline.
Compounding the situation, a dispute has emerged over how to calculate the 60-day limit. The Federal Parliament Secretariat argues the countdown begins the day after the ordinances were tabled in parliament, potentially extending the deadline to Friday. Parliament General Secretary Padam Prasad Pandey cited legal interpretations, court precedents, and procedural codes supporting this position.
However, constitutional lawyer Chandrakanta Gyawali contended that the count should start from the day both parliamentary houses first convene after the ordinances’ issuance, which was May 11. According to Gyawali, failure to approve within 60 days from that date renders the ordinances invalid, aligning with both the letter and intent of the constitution.
The debate unfolds amid broader criticism over the frequent use of ordinances by successive administrations, with opposition parties accusing governments of circumventing thorough parliamentary scrutiny through ordinances to advance contentious policies. Legal experts caution that ordinances should remain exceptional measures for urgent matters, not routine legislative shortcuts.
The government’s approach to prioritizing only some ordinances for passage reflects an effort to accommodate opposition concerns while deferring more divisive measures. The ultimate fate of several key legislations now hangs in the balance as the constitutional deadline approaches.