The process of amending Nepal’s constitution has sparked controversy as both the government and opposition face criticism for their handling of the matter. Recently, political parties across the spectrum have voiced calls for changes to the national charter, leading the current administration to establish a panel tasked with preparing a discussion paper on constitutional amendments. The panel, led by Asim Shah, political advisor to Prime Minister Balendra Shah, initially included representatives from most parliamentary parties.

However, key opposition groups—the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, the second and third largest parties respectively—pulled out early from the panel’s efforts. They formed their own separate teams to develop amendment proposals. The remaining parties—the Nepali Communist Party, Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, Janata Samajbadi Party, and Rastriya Janamorcha—continued participation and contributed to the preparation of the discussion paper.

Tensions escalated when these four parties later distanced themselves from the panel, accusing it of attempting a comprehensive rewrite rather than a limited amendment of the constitution. They challenged the panel’s authority and criticized its inclusion of the constitution’s preamble and fundamental structure in the amendment debate. These parties contend that the current government and ruling parties lack the mandate to undertake wide-ranging constitutional reform and insisted on convening a parliamentary meeting to build broader consensus. They argue this meeting should specifically outline which provisions require amendment and the justification for such changes.

Some analysts note that while parliamentary involvement from the outset might have fostered greater ownership of the process, withdrawing after several months of engagement appears counterproductive. Opposition parties have expressed suspicion about the government’s commitment to key principles such as federalism and inclusion. Nevertheless, maintaining participation, rather than disengagement, is viewed as critical to safeguarding the constitution’s core achievements reached after years of negotiation through the Constituent Assembly.

Adding to the debate, the Rastriya Swatantra Party’s recent policy positions, including proposals to abolish provincial assemblies and depoliticize the National Assembly and local governments, have unsettled parties invested in federalism. Critics highlight that Nepal’s constitution, promulgated in 2015, is the product of compromise formed after a decade of conflict and political movements—including the Maoist insurgency, the 2006 People’s Movement, and the Madhesh uprising.

While Article 274 of the constitution permits amendments to all provisions except those safeguarding sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the people's sovereignty, changes to foundational elements such as federalism, republicanism, and inclusion are likely to meet strong resistance from those who fought to enshrine these principles.

The report produced by the Shah-led panel serves as an initial framework for discussions on potential constitutional changes. Given the sensitivities involved, many argue that addressing concerns early and building cross-party consensus are essential steps before moving forward. Observers emphasize that it is incumbent upon both the government and opposition to engage collaboratively, ensuring that any amendments reinforce rather than erode Nepal’s democratic and constitutional gains.