Now the National Independent Party has come to power with a majority and, as mentioned in its manifesto, has openly sought suggestions for amending the constitution. This article attempts to raise some questions and suggestions on the number of people's representatives in the federal parliament and provinces and their justification.

The Constituency Delimitation Commission, formed in accordance with Article 286 of the Constitution of Nepal, has determined a total of 495 constituencies (House of Representatives and Provincial Assemblies) across the country, under which 165 constituencies have been determined for the House of Representatives and 330 for the Provincial Assemblies. In determining this, the ratio of geography and population has been taken as the basis. The constitution has made provision for double the representation (direct) in the Federal Assembly. Accordingly, when 165 representatives are elected to the House of Representatives, 330 people are elected to the Provincial Assemblies. There are 275 people represented in the federal parliament, including 165 directly and 110 proportionally.

Giving priority to population in representation seems to be an injustice to the geography of the country as a whole. In addition, there is an uneven distribution of the number of people's representatives in remote hilly and mountainous districts. In districts with low population but geographically remote areas like Manang, Mustang, Humla, and Dolpa, where development infrastructure needs to be provided, where citizens need adequate budget and competent leadership to fulfill basic needs such as food, shelter, education, and health, there is barely one people's representative, while in a well-off district like Kathmandu (developed and accessible with all types of development infrastructure), there are direct representatives from 10 constituencies. Proportional representation is also added. What do so many representatives do in Kathmandu? What do representatives from Kathmandu-1 really do? Since everyone is represented in the overall policy making of the country, what is the work of the representatives here except attending the House and understanding the salary?

Rupandehi district also has more representation than necessary - there are 5 direct representatives, and proportional representatives are also added. Why is this the case in Kathmandu and Rupandehi when there are only one or two? Is this geographically fair? On the other hand, even if one direct representative is made mandatory in remote mountainous and hilly districts, proportional representation is not guaranteed. Without going too far, let's look at Ramechhap, a district near Kathmandu. The number of voters here is 187,952, but there is only one constituency. While the average number of voters per constituency in Kathmandu is 65,000 to 78,000. Even when talking about geography, the total area of ​​Kathmandu is 395 square kilometers, while the total area of ​​Ramechhap is 1,546 square kilometers. In such a situation, will it be easy for a single representative to represent such a large geography? Moreover, how possible is it to understand the problems of the people of the remote hilly geography and provide development infrastructure? In districts where there is only one representative, it is very difficult for him to reach the villages and understand the problems of the people and distribute the development budget. Considering both the population and geography in determining the constituencies, has the Constitution of Nepal done justice to districts like Ramechhap?

Now let's move on to the main objective of the article. The issue of representation should be the main issue among the main issues of the constitutional amendment. Provision should be made in the constitution to reduce the number of constituencies in Kathmandu, Morang, Jhapa, Rupandehi and Kailali, which have been designated as unnecessary financial burdens to the state. By doing this, Kathmandu can be divided into 10 constituencies, Morang from 6 to 4, and Jhapa, Rupandehi and Kailali from 5 to 3 constituencies. It is appropriate to increase representation in the mountainous and hilly districts. Proportional representation is also not fair. There is a situation where there are many from some districts and none from others. Therefore, the basis of proportional representation should be determined by paying attention to this aspect and the representation of other groups in proportional representation should be increased by setting 50 percent representation of women in direct elections.

In addition, the number of proportional representation should be reduced in both the union and the provinces to reduce unnecessary financial burden. However, in doing so, provision should be made in the constitution to take into account the representation of women, tribals, Dalits, backward classes and minority communities and bring them into the mainstream of the state.

To balance the weight of geography in representation and to protect the representation of hilly and mountainous districts, the weight of geography should be increased. It is the responsibility of the state to secure additional seats in such areas, keeping in mind the geographical remoteness. And, these things should be given top priority in amending the constitution.