Cases like Lalita Niwas, Patanjali, Giribandhu Tea-Estate, Widebody, Teramox have a common feature - the cabinet i.e. the Prime Minister of the time plays a decisive role in them. These cases confirm that the Prime Ministers themselves are abusing the facility of calling the decision taken by the Council of Ministers as 'policy' and not investigating it.

In this way, the example that the cabinet is the creator of the country's big irregularity scandal has given the message that it is the source of the irregularity. Therefore, the pressure is increasing to create a position where policy decisions can also come under the scope of research. The sub-committee under the State Order and Good Governance Committee of the Parliament has agreed to define policy decisions and make the Prime Minister accountable. But due to the disagreement of the ruling leadership, the bill itself has stalled. This situation must end. Either the government should proceed as per the report of the sub-committee, or the government should make a suitable proposal, or the committee should exercise its discretion.

The decision to give the government land of Lalita Niwas to 'Land Mafia' was made by Madhav Kumar Nepal's Council of Ministers for the expansion of the Prime Minister's residence. The same cabinet had given permission to Patanjali to buy the land at a limited discount and sell it within two months. The authority is investigating the matter, but the then decision-making authority, the Prime Minister of Nepal, while giving a statement to the authority, insisted that the decision of the Council of Ministers does not fall under the jurisdiction of the authority. Later, the cabinet led by Baburam Bhattarai decided to give the government land in Pashupati Tikinya Guthi in Lalita Niwas area to the land mafia. Similarly, the previous government under the leadership of KP Sharma Oli had made a decision from the Council of Ministers by opening the way to sell the demarcated land in the name of Giribandhu T-Estate located in Birtamod, Jhapa. There are many such cases, in which the direct-indirect involvement of the political leadership from the Prime Minister to the highest level is connected. However, they are not usually investigated or filed by the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission. For example, in the case of Lalita Niwas, the commission has given immunity to the decision-maker by labeling it a 'policy decision'. There is a need to put an end to the series of apparent irregularities, but the political leadership is left out of the investigation.

The sub-committee formed to reach a consensus on the authority bill has revealed what is a policy decision and what is not in the report submitted to the Chairman of the State Order and Good Governance Committee Ramhari Khatiwada on December 4. In which it is said that any decision made in relation to public procurement will not be a policy decision except in cases where the Council of Ministers has to decide according to the law. Likewise, it is said that any decision that has entered into the authority of such an officer or agency or exceeded the jurisdiction of such an officer or agency will not be a policy. It has been made clear that any decision made for the benefit, convenience or interest of a particular person or organization will not be a policy, except for those that are equally applicable to the general public according to the law. The sub-committee also submitted a report on the anti-corruption bill on the same day, which has been passed by the parliament and has come into force. However, the reason why the Authority Bill is not passed is because of the disagreement of Prime Minister and UML President KP Sharma Oli and Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba. 

The fact that irregularities are taking place under the guise of policy decisions is well known. Relatively large amounts of money and property of the state are being exploited due to irregularities based on cabinet decisions. The damage caused to the state by a single irregularity of the Council of Ministers is greater than many small irregularities. When those who bear the primary responsibility for preventing irregularities are complicit in corruption, it undermines the hope of good governance. In cases of irregularities involving the Council of Ministers or high political levels, the most powerful people in the country and all the political parties are involved, so there is no investigation and action. This eventually creates a vicious cycle. If maladministration is taking place under the guise of policy decisions, it is the responsibility of the political parties and especially the parliament to make it clear. The Authority Bill is an opportunity.