There is no doubt that corruption is rampant in Nepal. This is not only today's feeling, it is a legacy from history. The corruption of small amounts of money done by those in minor positions is no longer even our concern.

Because, corruption involving powerful people and relatively large amounts of money has overshadowed it. Corruption incidents that are discussed as scandals or cases have caused economic damage to the state, and the image is losing among the international community. But strong initiatives have not been taken to find the root of such corruption and reduce it.

Many people think that corruption scandals have increased due to the decisions made by the Cabinet. Therefore, they argue that policy decisions should be made more clear and the decisions of the Council of Ministers should also be brought under scrutiny. At the center of this old debate is a difference of opinion on how to understand the executive's decision-making powers and authority's scope. It is necessary to reach a conclusion.

This debate got its latest context after the sub-committee formed to seek consensus on the bill on authority under consideration in the State System and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives defined the policy decision. Under the current provisions of the Act on Abuse of Authority, the decision of the Federal Council of Ministers does not fall under the authority's investigation. The Council of Ministers or its members shall not be punished for being involved in such a decision. The sub-committee defined the policy decision.

According to the law, any decision made in relation to public procurement is not policy-related except in cases where the Cabinet of Ministers of the Government of Nepal has to decide. Any decision that enters into the authority of such an officer or agency or exceeds the jurisdiction of such an officer or agency is not a policy.

Likewise, any decision made to benefit, facilitate or benefit a particular person or organization is not policy-based, except for those that are equally applicable to the general public according to the law.

The facilities available to the cabinet have made it easier for corrupt people who are inside or close to the cabinet. Decisions on small or big matters are made by the Council of Ministers so as not to be dragged into the investigation for wrong decisions. This is losing the decision-making capacity of the concerned office/ministry that has to take decisions. Corruption is increasing mainly under the guise of policy decisions. If there are many corruption scandals, which are also known as

s, then the decision made by the cabinet called policy can be reached. A reference, is the Lalita Niwas case. The decision of the Council of Ministers led by Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai is added to this. But in the judgment of the special court, the prime minister or the minister was not found guilty, but the employee. So the Jamaat is strong in believing that the facility called policy decisions protects the political class and thereby increases corruption. As a result, the argument that the decision-making independence of the Council of Ministers should be restricted in the bill under consideration has gained strength. 

This argument has two parts. First, how much decision-making authority should the cabinet have? What is the provision of our constitution? Does the monitoring of the authority reduce corruption? Article 75 of the Constitution of Nepal states that the executive power of Nepal is vested in the Council of Ministers. Likewise, the general direction, control and operation of Nepal's governance system will also be in charge of the Council of Ministers.

It is natural that the decision-making authority of such a powerful and responsible body should be extensive. But the sub-committee's report paves the way for the cabinet's decision to come under the purview of a constitutional commission's monitoring and investigation authority. As a result, the decision-making process of the Council of Ministers becomes 'self-censorship'. As a result, the Council of Ministers itself is likely to be a prisoner of indecision.

Second, how much to expect from the authority? Many feel that if the authority can be strengthened, it will investigate all cases of irregularities, big and small. It also prevents the cabinet from being arbitrary. It discourages the Prime Minister and Ministers themselves from engaging in irregularities in the guise of policy decisions.

This is just an ideal idea. Our past and the workings of authority do not confirm that. Mainly, the authority does not prevent corruption, but only investigates it. But now such investigations are also guided by political urges/biases. As its scope expands, that trend is likely to become more widespread. If a person with wrong intentions reaches the leadership of the authority, he will make the cabinet itself panic. Mainly it will raise the authority as a structure above the Council of Ministers.

On the one hand, it is understood that corruption scandals are increasing due to the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers with the intention of staying out of the investigation of the authority by 'misusing' the facilities received by the Council of Ministers. On the other hand, there is concern that giving the authority the authority to investigate the decisions of the Cabinet will weaken the executive authority.