Major opposition parties in Nepal, the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal–Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), are preparing to challenge key provisions of the House of Representatives Regulations 2026 in the Supreme Court. The parties argue that certain clauses of the regulations are incompatible with the constitution and existing laws, and they plan to file separate writ petitions to seek their annulment.

Bhishma Raj Angdembe, parliamentary party leader of the Nepali Congress, said the party is finalizing its petition and anticipates filing it soon. The petition will be submitted jointly by three members of the party’s National Assembly parliamentary group along with the chief whip and a whip from its House of Representatives faction. Similarly, the CPN-UML is drafting its own petition, with senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai assigned to prepare the documentation. Ain Mahar, the UML’s chief whip in the House of Representatives, noted that although the parties had hoped to file a joint petition, the cases are expected to be consolidated for hearing.

The House of Representatives passed the contested regulations on May 31, primarily with support from the ruling majority, despite vocal opposition and procedural disruptions from opposition lawmakers.

According to Angdembe, several provisions of the regulations exceed constitutional authority and undermine parliamentary processes. The Nepali Congress held consultations with a team of senior advocates, including Radheshyam Adhikari, Harihar Dahal, Gopal Krishna Ghimire, Prem Bahadur Khadka, Yadu Nath Khanal, Sher Bahadur KC, and Lalit Basnet, after which the decision to pursue legal action was made.

The opposition’s petition targets three specific components of the regulations: the preamble, Rule 140, and Rule 259. They contend that the preamble improperly extends the House’s powers beyond constitutional limits by including the authority “to remove difficulties that may arise.” This addition, they argue, is not authorized under Article 104(1) of the constitution, which permits the House only to manage its business, maintain order, and regulate its composition and procedures. Senior advocate Yadu Nath Khanal described the expansion as a significant constitutional flaw that undermines the legal foundation of the regulations.

A further subject of dispute is Rule 140(11), which addresses the procedure for constitutional amendments. The constitution’s Article 274 mandates that amendments require separate two-thirds majorities in both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. However, the challenged rule allows calculating the two-thirds majority based on the combined membership of both houses, while also granting the Speaker discretionary interpretive authority. The opposition parties and their legal advisors argue this conflicts with constitutional requirements and diminishes the constitutional role of the National Assembly. Advocate Tikaram Bhattarai emphasized that the House cannot alter the amendment process through internal regulations.

The opposition also objects to Rule 259, which declares that the House regulations will apply “notwithstanding anything contained in the prevailing laws,” effectively elevating the regulations to the status of federal law. This, they argue, infringes on the legislative procedure outlined in the constitution, which requires that federal laws be enacted through approval by both houses and presidential assent. Bhattarai noted that internal House rules cannot supersede federal law or assume its authority.

Legal experts suggest that this provision was inserted to provide protections to lawmakers facing criminal prosecution, specifically citing ongoing debates about the suspension of Rastriya Swatantra Party chair Ravi Lamichhane amid fraud and money laundering cases. The regulations contain provisions governing the suspension of lawmakers under certain criminal charges but omit explicit mention of cases related to corruption or money laundering, raising concerns about selective application.

The petition argues that granting these regulations federal law status encroaches on the authority of the National Assembly and undermines Nepal’s bicameral legislative framework. It seeks not only the invalidation of the contested provisions on grounds they violate Articles 1, 104, 133, and 274 of the constitution but also an interim order suspending their enforcement pending judicial review.

UML chief whip Ain Mahar said resorting to the Supreme Court was necessary after repeated parliamentary objections failed to prevent the regulations’ passage. “We protested inside Parliament, but the regulations were passed on the strength of the ruling majority,” Mahar said. “Now we are turning to the Supreme Court for a constitutional remedy.”