President Ramchandra Paudel has sent back the constitutional council bill to the parliament. The President sent the bill back on Thursday for reconsideration.

President Paudel has sent the bill to amend the Constitutional Council (Work, Duties, Powers and Procedures) Act 2066 passed by both houses of the Federal Parliament saying that it is not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and has been sent back to the House of Representatives for reconsideration. President Paudel also presented 5 reasons for sending the bill back. 

Speaker Devraj Ghimir sent the bill to the President on June 31 for verification. 

5 reasons for the withdrawal of the bill

1. Article 284 of the Constitution of Nepal stipulates that there will be a Constitutional Council with the Prime Minister as the chairman to recommend the appointment of the Chief Justice and the heads and officials of the constitutional bodies in accordance with this constitution. It seems that this bill has been prepared to amend Section 6 of the existing Constitutional Council (Works, Duties, Rights and Procedures) Act, 2066 based on the fact that in sub-section (4) of the said article of the Constitution, the other work, duties and rights of the Constitutional Council and the procedure related to the appointment of the Chief Justice or the head or officer of the constitutional body shall be in accordance with the federal law.

When recommending the appointment of the Chief Justice in accordance with Article 129(2) of the Constitution of Nepal and when recommending the appointment of the heads and officials of the constitutional bodies under Article 283 of the Constitution of Nepal, with the aim of assimilating the constitutional principle of inclusive, participatory and quality representation in accordance with the constitutional expectations and to control the arbitrariness that may occur during the recommendation, to maintain good governance and legal rule and to institutionalize the separation of powers, control and balance in the state operation. There is no doubt or ambivalence about the important role of the Constitutional Council in implementing the Constitution by recommending appointments for the heads and officials of the constitutional bodies envisioned by the Constitution.

2. The Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties, Powers and Procedures) Act,  When comparing the provisions of 2066 and the amendment bill presented now, at first glance, it appears that the spirit and spirit of Article 284 of the Constitution and universal democratic practice and recognition are unfavorable and I suspect that such practice will limit and narrow the constitutionality.

3. As everyone's interest and concern will naturally remain in the decision made by the Constitutional Council, the public's trust towards it should be strong. It seems that the Chairman and other members of the Constitutional Council mentioned in Article 284 (1) of the Constitution are kept permanently. But my attention has also been drawn to the fact that when the law is made targeting the imaginary situation that even the existing members are not idle or may be absent at a certain time, it should not create a serious and complicated situation.

4.  Recommendations and decisions must be made by consensus of the total number of members mentioned in the Constitutional Council. In case of unanimity, the majority of the total number should not be overshadowed in any way and the basis of the majority should be considered as the final pillar of the decision. The provision of section 6 of the Act is pointed out to any special situation without any rational basis or reason, in the presented amendment bill, when at least fifty percent of the chairman and the existing members are present, the decision made on behalf of the council by the presence of at least 50% of the members who can be retained is automatically understood as a minority, so it is my opinion that the bill containing such a provision needs to be reconsidered.