The special central convention of the Nepali Congress has brought about a remarkable change in Nepali politics. That special convention dissolved the old working committee and formed a new working committee under the chairmanship of Gagan Thapa. This created a difficult situation within the party and led to a state of discord.

The special general convention meeting dissolved Sher Bahadur Deuba's old working committee and informed the Election Commission of the matter as per Section 51 of the Political Parties Act.

After the Gagan group informed about the change in office bearers, the Sher Bahadur group also approached the Election Commission and submitted a written objection stating that the Gagan group's general convention was illegal and that group should not be updated. After written claims and objections from both sides, the Commission had to decide whether to update the office bearers or not as per Section 51 of the Political Parties Act.

While studying and examining the written claims submitted by both sides and other documents received, subject to the constitution, the act and the party's statute, the Commission decided to update the party's office bearers as per the Gagan group's claim, stating that it was "found to have been done/made in accordance with the Political Parties Act and the party's statute." A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking to "overturn" the decision as it was contrary to the constitution, act, law and the party's statute. The Supreme Court has issued a show cause order and called for discussion.

The old founding parties have claimed that ‘since the statute provides that only the Central Working Committee can call a special central general convention, the law does not recognize the general convention called in violation of that provision, so it is unfortunate.’ On the other hand, the special general convention party says, ‘According to Article 17 of the statute, if the working committee does not call a special general convention, if 40 percent of the general convention representatives make a written request to call a general convention meeting, there is a mandatory provision to call a special general convention within three months, and accordingly, 51 percent more representatives can attend and hold the meeting, and that will be legitimate.’

This article attempts to analyze which of the statements and claims of these two parties is in accordance with the law and the statute. Even though the current special general convention was not called by the working committee, it is found to be legitimate and legal for the following reasons. 

That special central general convention meeting is in accordance with the statute. Article 17 (2) of the statute makes it mandatory to call a special central general convention within 3 months if 40 percent of the general convention representatives make a written request to the center to call a special central general convention meeting. Therefore, it is clear that the action taken by the center, that is, the general secretary of the center, to call such a convention is in accordance with the statute. Because Rule 17 (2) of the statute provides that the special central general convention or the central working committee can call it itself or, if not, the center can call it upon the written request of 40 percent of the general convention members.

Rule 2 (12) defines the term center as including the working committee and the central office of the party. Since the said special central general convention was not called by the working committee and was called by the general secretary on behalf of the party's central office, it is legal and in accordance with the statute.

Because according to Rule 27 of the statute, the central office of the Nepali Congress is under the general secretary - the general secretary will supervise and operate the central office. This provision is made in Article 22 of the statute, and since 40 percent of the general convention delegates made a written request to convene a special central general convention, the general convention convened and held by the general secretary accordingly appears to be in accordance with the law and the statute.

1. The four-year term of the central general convention cannot be extended by the working committee: Rule 27 (1) of the statute provides that the central general convention meeting shall be held every four years. The statute does not provide the working committee with the authority to extend the four-year term. However, the previous working committee, chaired by Sher Bahadur Deuba, relied on Article 43 of the statute when it decided to hold the central general convention, which was supposed to be held this Mangsir, by next Baisakh, citing various reasons.

Article 43 of the statute provides that ‘the term of office of office-bearers and members of all levels of the party shall be four years. In case of extraordinary circumstances, the central working committee may extend the term by a maximum of one year, citing the reasons.’ The said provision gives the working committee the right to extend the term of office of its office bearers and members by one year.

It does not seem possible to say and interpret the provision in Article 17 of the statute that ‘the working committee has the right to extend the four-year term of the general convention’. In this sense, the decision to extend the term of the general convention, which should have been completed by the previous Mangshir, by six months and to hold it in Baisakh does not seem to be in accordance with the statute. In that sense, the functioning of the old working committee is against the statute, rules and procedures. 

2. The term of the general convention will not be extended due to the extension of the term of office of the office bearers and members by one year:  According to Rule 43 of the statute, the term of office of the office bearers and members at all levels of the party will be four years and if an extraordinary situation arises, the Central Working Committee may extend the term by a maximum of one year, explaining the reasons for it. The four-year term of the Central General Convention will also automatically extend due to the extension or extension of the term of office of the working committee, there is no provision anywhere in the statute. Therefore, the interpretation that ‘the term of the Central General Conference may automatically be extended due to the extension of the term of the Working Committee’ is clearly against the law and the statute.

3. The Central General Conference of the Congress is the highest authorized body of the party:  Article 15 of the Constitution of the Congress recognizes the Central General Conference as the sovereign and supreme authorized body. There is no provision in the Constitution to have the Working Committee above this sovereign and supreme body. In that sense, the Central Working Committee is only a subordinate body under the Central General Conference.

As the Central Working Committee has made a provision as per Rule 22 of the Constitution, ‘in the absence of a meeting of the Central General Conference and the General Committee, it is clear that the General Conference and the General Committee are above the Working Committee. In this sense, if Section 17 (2) is interpreted as meaning that the meeting cannot be held unless the Working Committee calls a special general convention meeting, on the one hand, it means that the Working Committee can be above the general convention. On the other hand, such an interpretation helps the Working Committee become autocratic.

Because the general convention cannot be held unless the Working Committee calls it and if the four-year term ends due to the meeting not being held, then it will be possible to extend its term each time as per Section 42 of the statute. In this case, the Working Committee will become autocratic and a situation will be created where one group will always control the party. 

To prevent such a risky situation from arising and to prevent the working committee from becoming autocratic, Article 17 (2) of the statute has made a mandatory provision that ‘If the working committee does not call a special general convention meeting for any reason, if 40 percent of the general convention representatives make a written request to call such a meeting, the special general convention must be called within three months of such request.’ Article 17 (5) clearly states that ‘The special general convention meeting called in this way shall have full authority to elect a new working committee, amend the statute, formulate and implement policies.’ Therefore, the statute of the Nepali Congress has assimilated the democratic system. 

4. Sovereign right to uphold or overturn the decisions of the working committee:  The statute has accepted the Central General Convention as the sovereign and supreme authority of the party. The decision of the previous Working Committee to extend the term of office of such a supreme authority has been annulled by the current Special General Convention pursuant to Section 17 (5) without its approval. Therefore, the term of office of the previous office bearers should be automatically considered null and void.

Because the Special General Convention has full authority to dissolve the old Working Committee and elect a new Working Committee, amend the statute and determine the party's policy. Therefore, it is confirmed that the Working Committee elected by the General Convention meeting held with a quorum is the legal Working Committee of the Nepali Congress as per the statute.

5. Decision of the Election Commission and its validity:  Section 43 of the Political Parties Act-2073 has given the Election Commission the authority to resolve disputes regarding the recognition of any party. Similarly, as per Section 51, if a party gives written information that ‘there has been a change in the executive committee of its party’, the Commission has been empowered to study and verify the constitution, act and party statute and update it accordingly if such change is found to be in accordance with the law and party statute.

Accordingly, after the special general convention was concluded, the Nepali Congress had given written information as per Section 51 of the Political Parties Act that ‘the meeting of the new general convention was concluded and that meeting elected a new working committee’. Immediately, the old establishment party had registered a written complaint with the Commission stating that ‘the working committee did not call the special general convention held on 27-28 and since such a general convention can only be called by the working committee, the meeting called in violation of the statute and law and the working committee elected from it are illegal, so Section 51 should not be updated.’ 

When the old founding committee of Sher Bahadur Deuba's faction complained to the commission that '40 percent of the representatives did not even sign the application to call a special general convention and the quorum of 51 percent was not reached in the special general convention meeting', there was no situation to take and confirm the claim.