The Local Autonomy Bill had been a long-running controversy over whether or not to subject local level people's representatives to party discipline. The main opposition party, UML, was in favor of subjecting them to party discipline. The ruling party, including the Congress, was opposed to it. The bill proposed that if the party concerned takes action against those who defect, the post of people's representative would be forfeited.

The development committee discussed the issue for a long time. During the discussion on the bill, the main opposition parties, including the UML and the RPP, were in favor of including a provision that if local level office bearers leave the party, their posts would automatically become vacant. The ruling Congress, the newly formed ML, and the RPP's Chand group were in favor of including a provision that local bodies cannot take party action against people's representatives.

The ruling party was in favor of including a provision in the bill that even if they change parties, membership would remain and the post of people's representative would also be forfeited. The opposition party also disagreed with the provision to form thematic development branches of the former District Development Committee and municipalities. The ruling party argued that local people's representatives should not be put under party pressure and should be allowed to work independently. The bottom line was that they agreed with the proposal to include a provision to allow elected people's representatives to defect in the hope of joining the Chand group that broke away from the RPP and the Male that broke away from the UML. The Male was expecting elected people's representatives from the UML to join their party.

In this background, after months of discussion on the bill in the Development Committee of the Parliament, it was resolved by voting on 20 Bhadra 2055. The dispute was resolved on the basis of minority and majority in the 23-member committee. The chairman of the committee resolved the dispute on the basis of the majority obtained in the voting. The voting process was adopted for the first time in a parliamentary committee. But the MPs of the main opposition party, including Raghuji Pant, had said that the points of disagreement should be mentioned in the committee report. But the Speaker had submitted it to the House of Representatives without their disagreement.

The government had voted against its own proposal in the bill and scrapped the provision on party resignation. There is no practice of the government voting against the provision submitted by itself. But the government had scrapped its own proposal on the provision on party resignation. The bill was submitted by the previous government. At that time, the Local Development Minister of the Lokendra Bahadur Chand-led government, Amrit Kumar Bohara, had presented the bill.

Girija Prasad Koirala was the Prime Minister at the time of the passage of the bill. If the government needs to correct the provisions of the bill, it can withdraw it by giving a written notice to the Parliament and the committee. But the government ignored this practice. The bill, along with the report passed by the committee, was submitted to the Parliament by Chairman Prem Bahadur Bhandari on 24 Bhada 2055. The main opposition parties, including the UML, did not allow the discussion on the bill to take place in the parliament by raising slogans. The discussion on the bill was stopped for a week due to opposition protests. There was a huge uproar during the passage of the bill by the parliament on 1 Asoj 2055.

When Speaker Ramchandra Poudel presented the bill for a decision to pass it, the meeting room of the parliament was vandalized due to a conflict between opposition and ruling party lawmakers. The microphone and the match table were broken. The structures of the meeting room were damaged beyond repair and could not be used. This was probably the first incident in the history of Nepal's parliament until then when lawmakers themselves broke tables and chairs and created a ruckus. In the midst of the ruckus, Speaker Poudel announced the passage of the Local Autonomy Bill. Angered by this, the opposition parties, including the UML, demanded the resignation of the Speaker. The opposition had alleged that the bill was passed by the Speaker instead of by the Parliament. The opposition was very angry that day.

The opposition parties, including the UML, which was particularly aggressive towards Speaker Poudel, had accused the Speaker of not behaving in an official capacity. In the same vein, 54 MPs, including the UML, had jointly signed a motion against the Speaker on 7 Asoj 2055, accusing him of not behaving in a manner befitting his office. After registering the motion against the Speaker at 2:30 pm, the ruling Congress and the ML parties had registered a motion against Deputy Speaker Leela Shrestha Subba at 3:30 pm on the same day, raising the issue of conduct in office, and 69 MPs had registered a motion against her.

The opposition had registered a motion against Poudel, who was elected from the Congress, and the ruling party had registered a motion against Subba, who was elected from the UML, raising the issue of conduct in office. This had further widened the political gap between the ruling party and the main opposition. UML had raised the issue of conduct against the Speaker in anger over the forced passage of the Local Governance Bill. The Congress had also raised the issue of conduct against Deputy Speaker Subba, accusing him of not acting in accordance with his official conduct.

This was the first time in Nepal's parliamentary history that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker had been registered by raising the issue of official conduct. UML had accused the Speaker of forcibly passing the bill without discussing or communicating on any issue in accordance with the constitution and parliamentary tradition, even though he was the leader of the parliament. UML had claimed that Speaker Poudel had played a role in weakening local autonomy by passing the bill and had approved the proposal and announced the decision without discussion.

UML had held a press conference at the parliamentary party office and said that morality would not allow Poudel to remain as Speaker. According to UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, Nepal Sadbhawan Party, Masal and Mazdoor Kisan Party had informed that they would support the proposal. UML also accused Speaker Poudel of belittling the opposition in the media by addressing them as 'they'. General Secretary Nepal had said that the motion against the Speaker was not brought due to political bias.

General Secretary Nepal had said that the Congress had registered the motion against the Deputy Speaker with political bias. Two-thirds of the MPs were required to pass the motion against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The motion brought under Sub-regulation 1 of Rule 180 of the House of Representatives had to be brought to two-thirds. But there were 129 MPs from the Congress and the Male.

The opposition was also not in a position to bring it to two-thirds. Speaker Poudel had claimed that the opposition had registered the motion only to record its opposition against him. If the motion registered in the Parliament Secretariat is against the Speaker, the General Secretary should submit it to the Deputy Speaker, and if it is against the Deputy Speaker, it should be submitted to the Speaker and heard within seven days. But since the motion was filed against both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker at the same time, Poudel had informed that he was seeking legal advice on how to proceed. He had clarified that he was presenting the bill for decision because he could not keep it in the House.

Slogans demanding the record to be read

After registering a motion of misconduct against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker in Parliament, on 7 Asoj 2055, the UML and the RPP had raised slogans in Parliament demanding the record of the passage of the Local Autonomy Bill to be read. UML and RPP MPs had surrounded the Parliament and raised slogans, objecting to Speaker Poudel declaring the bill passed without it having been passed.

They had said that they would not allow the meeting to proceed without hearing the record. Even after a week of the bill's passage, the confrontation between the ruling party and the opposition had not abated. They demanded that the tape record of the day the bill was passed be played and the video be shown. UML MP KP Sharma Oli had surrounded the rostrum and warned that he would not allow the meeting to proceed if the record was not played. He said that the Speaker had forced the bill to be passed that day. Poudel, on the other hand, had urged people not to talk only about themselves in a democracy and to respect the majority. When the Speaker started to speak, UML MPs surrounded the rostrum with cheers and applause. They chanted slogans calling the conspiracy to weaken the parliament 'murdavad'. After continuous opposition from the opposition, the parliament was adjourned for 4 days.